Add missing register class conversion for inline asm #232
Conversation
GuillaumeGomez
force-pushed
the
more-inline-asm-register-class-conversion
branch
from
dd56ca2 to
d532473
Compare
GuillaumeGomez
force-pushed
the
more-inline-asm-register-class-conversion
branch
from
d532473 to
0301d4a
Compare
|
You'll probably want to run the tests in src/test/assembly/asm to check that the constraints for all targets are correct. |
GuillaumeGomez
force-pushed
the
more-inline-asm-register-class-conversion
branch
from
0301d4a to
26d58e2
Compare
src/base.rs
Outdated
| context.add_command_line_option(arg); | ||
| if !arg.starts_with("--x86-asm-syntax=") { | ||
| context.add_command_line_option(arg); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would break anyone that needs a specific assembly syntax in rustc's output, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We're currently doing some tests.
This option is an LLVM option; for gcc it should be -masm=intel. I'm not sure what's the plan for supporting setting options for the different backends, but cg_gcc currently uses llvm-args to set gcc options. Since this option is to send arguments to the backend, I'm not sure it makes sense to do the mapping between the LLVM options and GCC options.
I guess we would need to discuss this somewhere to agree on the correct solution, though.
GuillaumeGomez
force-pushed
the
more-inline-asm-register-class-conversion
branch
2 times, most recently
from
636346a to
ffd1df7
Compare
GuillaumeGomez
force-pushed
the
more-inline-asm-register-class-conversion
branch
5 times, most recently
from
51b6ba1 to
68e0c6e
Compare
GuillaumeGomez
force-pushed
the
more-inline-asm-register-class-conversion
branch
from
68e0c6e to
f150ab3
Compare
Part of #60.