Recommit r201059 and r201060 with hopefully a fix for its original failure.
Original commits messages:
Add MRMXr/MRMXm form to X86 for use by instructions which treat the 'reg' field of modrm byte as a don't care value. Will allow for simplification of disassembler code.
Simplify a bunch of code by removing the need for the x86 disassembler table builder to know about extended opcodes. The modrm forms are sufficient to convey the information.
llvm-svn: 201065
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86CodeEmitter.cpp b/llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86CodeEmitter.cpp
index 579bf9b..d0f69b5 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86CodeEmitter.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86CodeEmitter.cpp
@@ -212,6 +212,7 @@
}
break;
}
+ case X86II::MRMXm:
case X86II::MRM0m: case X86II::MRM1m:
case X86II::MRM2m: case X86II::MRM3m:
case X86II::MRM4m: case X86II::MRM5m:
@@ -1295,6 +1296,7 @@
break;
}
+ case X86II::MRMXr:
case X86II::MRM0r: case X86II::MRM1r:
case X86II::MRM2r: case X86II::MRM3r:
case X86II::MRM4r: case X86II::MRM5r:
@@ -1302,8 +1304,9 @@
if (HasVEX_4V) // Skip the register dst (which is encoded in VEX_VVVV).
++CurOp;
MCE.emitByte(BaseOpcode);
+ uint64_t Form = (Desc->TSFlags & X86II::FormMask);
emitRegModRMByte(MI.getOperand(CurOp++).getReg(),
- (Desc->TSFlags & X86II::FormMask)-X86II::MRM0r);
+ (Form == X86II::MRMXr) ? 0 : Form-X86II::MRM0r);
if (CurOp == NumOps)
break;
@@ -1332,6 +1335,7 @@
break;
}
+ case X86II::MRMXm:
case X86II::MRM0m: case X86II::MRM1m:
case X86II::MRM2m: case X86II::MRM3m:
case X86II::MRM4m: case X86II::MRM5m:
@@ -1343,7 +1347,8 @@
X86II::getSizeOfImm(Desc->TSFlags) : 4) : 0;
MCE.emitByte(BaseOpcode);
- emitMemModRMByte(MI, CurOp, (Desc->TSFlags & X86II::FormMask)-X86II::MRM0m,
+ uint64_t Form = (Desc->TSFlags & X86II::FormMask);
+ emitMemModRMByte(MI, CurOp, (Form==X86II::MRMXm) ? 0 : Form - X86II::MRM0m,
PCAdj);
CurOp += X86::AddrNumOperands;