MASM allows variables defined by equate statements to be used in expressions.
Reviewed By: thakis
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86946
MASM aligns fields to the _minimum_ of the STRUCT alignment value and the size of the next field.
Reviewed By: thakis
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86945
Add support for line continuations (the "backslash operator") in MASM by modifying the Parser's Lex method.
Reviewed By: thakis
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83347
Summary:
Add support for MASM STRUCT casting field accessors: (<TYPE> PTR <value>).<field>
Since these are operands, we add them to X86AsmParser. If/when we extend MASM support to other architectures (e.g., ARM), we will need similar changes there as well.
Reviewed By: thakis
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83346
Summary:
Add support for user-defined types to MasmParser, including initialization and field access.
Known issues:
- Omitted entry initializers (e.g., <,0>) do not work consistently for nested structs/arrays.
- Size checking/inference for values with known types is not yet implemented.
- Some ml64.exe syntaxes for accessing STRUCT fields are not recognized.
- `[<register>.<struct name>].<field>`
- `[<register>[<struct name>.<field>]]`
- `(<struct name> PTR [<register>]).<field>`
- `[<variable>.<struct name>].<field>`
- `(<struct name> PTR <variable>).<field>`
Reviewed By: thakis
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75306
Summary:
When parsing 64-bit MASM, treat memory operands with unspecified base register as RIP-based.
Documented in several places, including https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/introduction-to-x64-assembly: "Unfortunately, MASM does not allow this form of opcode, but other assemblers like FASM and YASM do. Instead, MASM embeds RIP-relative addressing implicitly."
Reviewed By: thakis
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73227
This reverts commit 9fe769a961, and re-lands commit c2e272f8cf.
Summary: Add support for ?, DUP, and string initializers, as well as MASM syntax for named data locations.
This version avoids the use of a C++17-only feature, if-statements with initializer.
Reviewers: rnk, thakis
Reviewed By: thakis
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73226
Summary: Add support for ?, DUP, and string initializers, as well as MASM syntax for named data locations.
Reviewers: rnk, thakis
Reviewed By: thakis
Subscribers: merge_guards_bot, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73226
Summary:
Many directives are unavailable, and support for others may be limited.
This first draft has preliminary support for:
- conditional directives (including errors),
- data allocation (unsigned types up to 8 bytes, and ALIGN),
- equates/variables (numeric and text),
- and procedure directives (without parameters),
as well as COMMENT, ECHO, INCLUDE, INCLUDELIB, PUBLIC, and EXTERN. Text variables (aka text macros) are expanded in-place wherever the identifier occurs.
We deliberately ignore all ml.exe processor directives.
Prominent features not yet supported:
- structs
- macros (both procedures and functions)
- procedures (with specified parameters)
- substitution & expansion operators
Conditional directives are complicated by the fact that "ifdef rax" is a valid way to check if a file is being assembled for a 64-bit x86 processor; we add support for "ifdef <register>" in general, which requires adding a tryParseRegister method to all MCTargetAsmParsers. (Some targets require backtracking in the non-register case.)
Reviewers: rnk, thakis
Reviewed By: thakis
Subscribers: kerbowa, merge_guards_bot, wuzish, arsenm, dschuff, jyknight, dylanmckay, sdardis, nemanjai, jvesely, mgorny, sbc100, jgravelle-google, hiraditya, aheejin, kbarton, fedor.sergeev, asb, rbar, johnrusso, simoncook, sabuasal, niosHD, jrtc27, MaskRay, zzheng, edward-jones, atanasyan, rogfer01, MartinMosbeck, brucehoult, the_o, PkmX, jocewei, jsji, Jim, s.egerton, pzheng, sameer.abuasal, apazos, luismarques, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72680
As discussed on the mailing list, I plan to introduce an ml-compatible MASM assembler as part of providing more of the Windows build tools. This will be similar to llvm-mc, but with different command-line parameters.
This placeholder is purely a stripped-down version of llvm-mc; we'll eventually add support for the Microsoft-style command-line flags, and back it with a MASM parser.
Relanding this revision after fixing ARM-compatibility issues.
Reviewers: rnk, thakis, RKSimon
Reviewed By: thakis, RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72679
Summary:
As discussed on the mailing list, I plan to introduce an ml-compatible MASM assembler as part of providing more of the Windows build tools. This will be similar to llvm-mc, but with different command-line parameters.
This placeholder is purely a stripped-down version of llvm-mc; we'll eventually add support for the Microsoft-style command-line flags, and back it with a MASM parser.
Reviewers: rnk, thakis
Reviewed By: thakis
Subscribers: merge_guards_bot, mgorny, jfb, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72679
Eric Astor