Index: include/llvm/MC/MCParser/MCTargetAsmParser.h
===================================================================
--- include/llvm/MC/MCParser/MCTargetAsmParser.h
+++ include/llvm/MC/MCParser/MCTargetAsmParser.h
@@ -133,6 +133,51 @@
   MatchOperand_ParseFail // operand matched but had errors
 };
 
+enum DiagnosticPredicateTy {
+  DP_Match,
+  DP_NearMatch,
+  DP_NoMatch,
+};
+
+// When an operand is parsed, the assembler will try iterate through a set of
+// possible operand classes that operand might match and call the corresponding
+// PredicateMethod to determine that.
+//
+// If there are two AsmOperands that would give a specific diagnostic if there
+// is no match, there is currently no mechanism to distinguish which operand is
+// a closer match. The DiagnosticPredicate distinguishes between 'completely
+// no match' and 'near match', so the assembler can decide whether to give a
+// specific diagnostic, or use 'InvalidOperand' and continue to find a
+// 'better matching' diagnostic.
+//
+// For example:
+//    opcode opnd0, onpd1, opnd2
+//
+// where:
+//    opnd2 could be an 'immediate of range [-8, 7]'
+//    opnd2 could be a  'register + decoration suffix'.
+//
+// If opnd2 is a valid register, but with a wrong decoration suffix, it makes
+// little sense to give a diagnostice that the operand should be an immediate
+// in range [-8, 7].
+//
+// This is a light-weight alternative to the 'NearMissInfo' approach
+// below which collects *all* possible diagnostics. This alternative
+// is optional and fully backward compatible with existing
+// PredicateMethods that return a 'bool' (match or no match).
+struct DiagnosticPredicate {
+  DiagnosticPredicateTy Type;
+
+  DiagnosticPredicate(bool Match) : Type(Match ? DP_Match : DP_NearMatch) {}
+  DiagnosticPredicate(DiagnosticPredicateTy T) : Type(T) {}
+  DiagnosticPredicate(const DiagnosticPredicate &) = default;
+
+  operator bool() const { return Type == DP_Match; }
+  bool isMatch() const { return Type == DP_Match; }
+  bool isNearMatch() const { return Type == DP_NearMatch; }
+  bool isNoMatch() const { return Type == DP_NoMatch; }
+};
+
 // When matching of an assembly instruction fails, there may be multiple
 // encodings that are close to being a match. It's often ambiguous which one
 // the programmer intended to use, so we want to report an error which mentions
Index: utils/TableGen/AsmMatcherEmitter.cpp
===================================================================
--- utils/TableGen/AsmMatcherEmitter.cpp
+++ utils/TableGen/AsmMatcherEmitter.cpp
@@ -2451,14 +2451,20 @@
       continue;
 
     OS << "  // '" << CI.ClassName << "' class\n";
-    OS << "  case " << CI.Name << ":\n";
-    OS << "    if (Operand." << CI.PredicateMethod << "())\n";
+    OS << "  case " << CI.Name << ": {\n";
+    OS << "    DiagnosticPredicate DP = Operand." << CI.PredicateMethod
+       << "();\n";
+    OS << "    if (DP.isMatch())\n";
     OS << "      return MCTargetAsmParser::Match_Success;\n";
-    if (!CI.DiagnosticType.empty())
-      OS << "    return " << Info.Target.getName() << "AsmParser::Match_"
+    if (!CI.DiagnosticType.empty()) {
+      OS << "    if (DP.isNearMatch())\n";
+      OS << "      return " << Info.Target.getName() << "AsmParser::Match_"
          << CI.DiagnosticType << ";\n";
+      OS << "    break;\n";
+    }
     else
       OS << "    break;\n";
+    OS << "    }\n";
   }
   OS << "  } // end switch (Kind)\n\n";