Evan, I don't know anything about this stuff, but looking at the pattern, it seems a mistake may have been made? Consider these:
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 20:27 -0600, Evan Cheng wrote:
> void X86ATTAsmPrinter::printMachineInstruction(const MachineInstr *MI) {
> ++EmittedInsts;
> + // This works around some Darwin assembler bugs.
> + if (forDarwin) {
> + switch (MI->getOpcode()) {
> + case X86::REP_MOVSB:
> + O << "rep/movsb (%esi),(%edi)\n";
> + return;
REP_MOVSB = rep/movsb
> + case X86::REP_MOVSD:
> + O << "rep/movsl (%esi),(%edi)\n";
> + return;
REP_MOVSD != rep/movsl
is this a mistake?
> + case X86::REP_MOVSW:
> + O << "rep/movsw (%esi),(%edi)\n";
> + return;
> + case X86::REP_STOSB:
> + O << "rep/stosb\n";
> + return;
> + case X86::REP_STOSD:
> + O << "rep/stosl\n";
> + return;
and this one?
> + case X86::REP_STOSW:
> + O << "rep/stosw\n";
> + return;
> + default:
> + break;
> + }
> + }
Reid.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
