RPCS3/llvm-mirror
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git synced 2024-11-24 03:33:20 +01:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity
ac19376e7b
llvm-mirror/test/MC/X86/ret.s

115 lines
2.8 KiB
ArmAsm
Raw Normal View History

[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
// RUN: not llvm-mc -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown --show-encoding %s 2> %t.err | FileCheck --check-prefix=64 %s
// RUN: FileCheck --check-prefix=ERR64 < %t.err %s
// RUN: not llvm-mc -triple i386-unknown-unknown --show-encoding %s 2> %t.err | FileCheck --check-prefix=32 %s
// RUN: FileCheck --check-prefix=ERR32 < %t.err %s
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// RUN: not llvm-mc -triple i386-unknown-unknown-code16 --show-encoding %s 2> %t.err | FileCheck --check-prefix=16 %s
// RUN: FileCheck --check-prefix=ERR16 < %t.err %s
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
ret
// 64: retq
// 64: encoding: [0xc3]
// 32: retl
// 32: encoding: [0xc3]
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// 16: retw
// 16: encoding: [0xc3]
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
retw
// 64: retw
// 64: encoding: [0x66,0xc3]
// 32: retw
// 32: encoding: [0x66,0xc3]
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// 16: retw
// 16: encoding: [0xc3]
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
retl
// ERR64: error: instruction requires: Not 64-bit mode
// 32: retl
// 32: encoding: [0xc3]
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// 16: retl
// 16: encoding: [0x66,0xc3]
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
retq
// 64: retq
// 64: encoding: [0xc3]
// ERR32: error: instruction requires: 64-bit mode
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// ERR16: error: instruction requires: 64-bit mode
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
ret $0
// 64: retq $0
// 64: encoding: [0xc2,0x00,0x00]
// 32: retl $0
// 32: encoding: [0xc2,0x00,0x00]
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// 16: retw $0
// 16: encoding: [0xc2,0x00,0x00]
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
retw $0
// 64: retw $0
// 64: encoding: [0x66,0xc2,0x00,0x00]
// 32: retw $0
// 32: encoding: [0x66,0xc2,0x00,0x00]
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// 16: retw $0
// 16: encoding: [0xc2,0x00,0x00]
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
retl $0
// ERR64: error: instruction requires: Not 64-bit mode
// 32: retl $0
// 32: encoding: [0xc2,0x00,0x00]
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// 16: retl $0
// 16: encoding: [0x66,0xc2,0x00,0x00]
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
retq $0
// 64: retq $0
// 64: encoding: [0xc2,0x00,0x00]
// ERR32: error: instruction requires: 64-bit mode
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// ERR16: error: instruction requires: 64-bit mode
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
lret
// 64: lretl
// 64: encoding: [0xcb]
// 32: lretl
// 32: encoding: [0xcb]
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// 16: lretw
// 16: encoding: [0xcb]
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
lretw
// 64: lretw
// 64: encoding: [0x66,0xcb]
// 32: lretw
// 32: encoding: [0x66,0xcb]
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// 16: lretw
// 16: encoding: [0xcb]
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
lretl
// 64: lretl
// 64: encoding: [0xcb]
// 32: lretl
// 32: encoding: [0xcb]
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// 16: lretl
// 16: encoding: [0x66,0xcb]
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
lretq
// 64: lretq
// 64: encoding: [0x48,0xcb]
// ERR32: error: instruction requires: 64-bit mode
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// ERR16: error: instruction requires: 64-bit mode
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
lret $0
// 64: lretl $0
// 64: encoding: [0xca,0x00,0x00]
// 32: lretl $0
// 32: encoding: [0xca,0x00,0x00]
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// 16: lretw $0
// 16: encoding: [0xca,0x00,0x00]
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
lretw $0
// 64: lretw $0
// 64: encoding: [0x66,0xca,0x00,0x00]
// 32: lretw $0
// 32: encoding: [0x66,0xca,0x00,0x00]
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// 16: lretw $0
// 16: encoding: [0xca,0x00,0x00]
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
lretl $0
// 64: lretl $0
// 64: encoding: [0xca,0x00,0x00]
// 32: lretl $0
// 32: encoding: [0xca,0x00,0x00]
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// 16: lretl $0
// 16: encoding: [0x66,0xca,0x00,0x00]
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
lretq $0
// 64: lretq $0
// 64: encoding: [0x48,0xca,0x00,0x00]
// ERR32: error: instruction requires: 64-bit mode
[x86] Support i386-*-*-code16 triple for emitting 16-bit code llvm-svn: 199648
2014-01-20 13:02:25 +01:00
// ERR16: error: instruction requires: 64-bit mode
[x86] Fix retq/retl handling in 64-bit mode This finishes the job started in r198756, and creates separate opcodes for 64-bit vs. 32-bit versions of the rest of the RET instructions too. LRETL/LRETQ are interesting... I can't see any justification for their existence in the SDM. There should be no 'LRETL' in 64-bit mode, and no need for a REX.W prefix for LRETQ. But this is what GAS does, and my Sandybridge CPU and an Opteron 6376 concur when tested as follows: asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\nmovq $0x33,%rax\nsalq $32,%rax\norq $1f,%rax\npushq %rax\nlretl $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq\n1:"); asm __volatile__("pushq $0x1234\npushq $0x33\npushq $1f\nlretq $8\n1:"); cf. PR8592 and commit r118903, which added LRETQ. I only added LRETIQ to match it. I don't quite understand how the Intel syntax parsing for ret instructions is working, despite r154468 allegedly fixing it. Aren't the explicitly sized 'retw', 'retd' and 'retq' supposed to work? I have at least made the 'lretq' work with (and indeed *require*) the 'q'. llvm-svn: 199106
2014-01-13 15:05:59 +01:00
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink