Page MenuHomePhabricator

[PowerPC] Allow a '%' prefix for registers in CFI directives
ClosedPublic

Authored by void on Wed, Nov 18, 12:41 PM.

Details

Summary

Clang generates a '%' prefix for some registers in CFI directives. E.g.
".cfi_register lr, r12" becomes ".cfi_register lr, %r12" after
processing.

Diff Detail

Event Timeline

void created this revision.Wed, Nov 18, 12:41 PM
Herald added a project: Restricted Project. · View Herald TranscriptWed, Nov 18, 12:41 PM
void requested review of this revision.Wed, Nov 18, 12:41 PM

I was thinking "would it be better to move this logic down into PPCAsmParser::MatchRegisterName? Well, I would suppose that would depend on if the % prefix on registers is valid in other contexts, for instance maybe other places that directly call PPCAsmParser::MatchRegisterName rather than `PPCAsmParser::tryParseRegister which you've modified here.

Right away, the next caller of PPCAsmParser::MatchRegisterName I found is in PPCAsmParser::ParseOperand:

1480   switch (getLexer().getKind()) {                                                                                                                                                     
1481   // Special handling for register names.  These are interpreted                                                                                                                      
1482   // as immediates corresponding to the register number.                                                                                                                              
1483   case AsmToken::Percent:                                                                                                                                                             
1484     Parser.Lex(); // Eat the '%'.                                                                                                                                                     
1485     unsigned RegNo;                                                                                                                                                                   
1486     int64_t IntVal;                                                                                                                                                                   
1487     if (MatchRegisterName(RegNo, IntVal))                                                                                                                                             
1488       return Error(S, "invalid register name");
...
1553     switch (getLexer().getKind()) {                                                                                                                                                   
1554     case AsmToken::Percent:                                                                                                                                                           
1555       Parser.Lex(); // Eat the '%'.                                                                                                                                                   
1556       unsigned RegNo;                                                                                                                                                                 
1557       if (MatchRegisterName(RegNo, IntVal))

So it looks like it's currently idiosyncratic that some callers lex the % and others do not. I highly doubt that's intentional. In that case, would you mind please sinking the lexing of % into PPCAsmParser::MatchRegisterName, then removing the existing % lexing, that way all sites that expect to parse registers conditionally with % prefixed do so in one place? I guess the existing sites expect there to be a % unconditionally; I suspect it should be conditional, at least to match GNU as portability concerns.

void added a comment.Wed, Nov 18, 3:37 PM

I was thinking "would it be better to move this logic down into PPCAsmParser::MatchRegisterName? Well, I would suppose that would depend on if the % prefix on registers is valid in other contexts, for instance maybe other places that directly call PPCAsmParser::MatchRegisterName rather than `PPCAsmParser::tryParseRegister which you've modified here.

When I do that, I get several register parsing failures, including for this testcase. I wanted to restrict this change to the CFI directives (this function seems to be used by those instead of normal functions). X86 has similar code in the same place.

I think what may be happening is that the MatchRegisterName function is looking at the token that's sometimes already lexed, and so isn't always "current" when the function calls.

I was thinking "would it be better to move this logic down into PPCAsmParser::MatchRegisterName? Well, I would suppose that would depend on if the % prefix on registers is valid in other contexts, for instance maybe other places that directly call PPCAsmParser::MatchRegisterName rather than `PPCAsmParser::tryParseRegister which you've modified here.

When I do that, I get several register parsing failures, including for this testcase. I wanted to restrict this change to the CFI directives (this function seems to be used by those instead of normal functions). X86 has similar code in the same place.

Oh?

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/AsmParser/PPCAsmParser.cpp b/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/AsmParser/PPCAsmParser.cpp
index 458edf71d6c8..5e4d17ec9a13 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/AsmParser/PPCAsmParser.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/AsmParser/PPCAsmParser.cpp
@@ -1201,6 +1201,8 @@ bool PPCAsmParser::MatchAndEmitInstruction(SMLoc IDLoc, unsigned &Opcode,
 }
 
 bool PPCAsmParser::MatchRegisterName(unsigned &RegNo, int64_t &IntVal) {
+  if (getParser().getTok().is(AsmToken::Percent))
+    getParser().Lex(); // Eat the '%'.
   if (getParser().getTok().is(AsmToken::Identifier)) {
     StringRef Name = getParser().getTok().getString();
     if (Name.equals_lower("lr")) {
@@ -1481,7 +1483,6 @@ bool PPCAsmParser::ParseOperand(OperandVector &Operands) {
   // Special handling for register names.  These are interpreted
   // as immediates corresponding to the register number.
   case AsmToken::Percent:
-    Parser.Lex(); // Eat the '%'.
     unsigned RegNo;
     int64_t IntVal;
     if (MatchRegisterName(RegNo, IntVal))
@@ -1552,7 +1553,6 @@ bool PPCAsmParser::ParseOperand(OperandVector &Operands) {
     int64_t IntVal;
     switch (getLexer().getKind()) {
     case AsmToken::Percent:
-      Parser.Lex(); // Eat the '%'.
       unsigned RegNo;
       if (MatchRegisterName(RegNo, IntVal))
         return Error(S, "invalid register name");

passes all tests for me, other than this newly added one; for some reason we get an additional newline before the blr instruction:

llvm-mc -triple powerpc64le-unknown-unknown /android0/llvm-project/llvm/test/MC/PowerPC/cfi-register-directive-parse.s
        .text



        .globl  __test1
__test1:
        .cfi_startproc
        mflr    12
        .cfi_register lr, r12

        blr
        .cfi_endproc

(Though maybe that's a bug in MCAsmStreamer for the assembler .cfi directives, or how registers are printed? Maybe DwarfRegNumForCFI is related?)

PPCAsmParser::ParseOperand also has a comment that %rNN is used for ELF but not Macho; maybe this should be conditioned on isDarwin()? Though that comment and the current implementation of PPCAsmParser::ParseOperand don't look like they match to me. Also, the above print out is curious to me how r12 gets printed without r prefix for mflr. LLVM looks a little inconsistent here in how PPC asm register operands are printed.

void updated this revision to Diff 306566.Thu, Nov 19, 5:24 PM

Move % eater to MatchRegisterName.

nickdesaulniers accepted this revision.Thu, Nov 19, 5:33 PM

I'm not sure how much ppc Darwin is much relevant anymore. If anyone cares, we can always make the % token consumption conditional.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Thu, Nov 19, 5:33 PM

I'm not sure how much ppc Darwin is much relevant anymore. If anyone cares, we can always make the % token consumption conditional.

Nobody cares. ppc Darwin has been deleted (I deleted lots of portion too...)

MaskRay added inline comments.Thu, Nov 19, 5:39 PM
llvm/test/MC/PowerPC/cfi-register-directive-parse.s
6
11

.text is redundant.

MaskRay accepted this revision.Thu, Nov 19, 5:41 PM
This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds.Thu, Nov 19, 6:20 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.