Summary:
But still handle them the same way since I don't know how they differ on
this target.
No functional change intended.
Reviewers: kparzysz, adasgupt
Reviewed By: kparzysz, adasgupt
Subscribers: colinl, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8204
Like for the PowerPC target, I've had to add 'i' to the constraint mappings in
order to pass 2007-12-17-InvokeAsm.ll. It's not clear why 'i' has historically
been treated as a memory constraint.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@232480
91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-
96231b3b80d8
Constraint_i,
Constraint_m,
Constraint_o,
- Constraint_v, // Unused at the moment since Constraint_m is always used.
+ Constraint_v,
Constraint_Q,
Constraint_Z,
Constraint_Zy,
SDValue Inp = Op, Res;
switch (ConstraintID) {
- case InlineAsm::Constraint_o: // Offsetable.
- case InlineAsm::Constraint_v: // Not offsetable.
default:
return true;
- case InlineAsm::Constraint_m: // Memory.
+ case InlineAsm::Constraint_i:
+ case InlineAsm::Constraint_o: // Offsetable.
+ case InlineAsm::Constraint_v: // Not offsetable.
+ case InlineAsm::Constraint_m: // Memory.
if (SelectAddrFI(Inp, Res))
OutOps.push_back(Res);
else
unsigned getInlineAsmMemConstraint(
const std::string &ConstraintCode) const override {
- // FIXME: Map different constraints differently.
- return InlineAsm::Constraint_m;
+ if (ConstraintCode == "o")
+ return InlineAsm::Constraint_o;
+ else if (ConstraintCode == "v")
+ return InlineAsm::Constraint_v;
+ return TargetLowering::getInlineAsmMemConstraint(ConstraintCode);
}
// Intrinsics