There're cases when our TD instruction definitions has "silent" bugs (operand name mismatch between In/out dags and encoding fields) which may lead to a situation when instruction has less operands than expected on disassembly. While this definitely requires a fix for such mismatches, it would be nice if operand printer not crash when no operand is met on such instruction. This fix prints such operands as missing.
Details
Details
- Reviewers
nhaustov • tstellarAMD arsenm - Commits
- rGc761675ef467: [AMDGPU] fix failure on printing of non-existing instruction operands.
rG3048ff6ec392: [AMDGPU] fix failure on printing of non-existing instruction operands.
rL278665: [AMDGPU] fix failure on printing of non-existing instruction operands.
rL278333: [AMDGPU] fix failure on printing of non-existing instruction operands.
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rL LLVM
Event Timeline
test/MC/Disassembler/AMDGPU/missing_op.txt | ||
---|---|---|
4 ↗ | (On Diff #67357) | Is this a valid assembler comment syntax? Should this be ; missing x y z? |
test/MC/Disassembler/AMDGPU/missing_op.txt | ||
---|---|---|
4 ↗ | (On Diff #67357) | You're right that would be better, but unfortunatelly I have to print it upon printOperand entry and this creates such "intermediate" comment. Otherwise I would need to accumulate comment line and print it sometime afterwards. Anyway this assembler text shouldn't be assembled so I think such comment would be ok. |