Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:03:46 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: status of armhf asm with VFP instructions On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 02:33:13AM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2015-10-15 20:00:56 -0400]: > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:16:07AM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > > most likely ual is the long term solution. > > > > > > maybe it is best to switch to ual and then write that script > > > if ppl with old binutils run into issues. > > > > That sounds like it might be the best option. I don't like dropping > > support for old stuff, but ARM really made a mess of this by making a > > new gratuitously incompatible asm syntax and encouraging tools not to > > support the old syntax (and particularly, not to support generating > > thumb2 from it, despite the fact that there's no fundamental reason it > > couldn't be done). > > > > BTW for other things I think we need some sort of syntax directive to > > tell the assembler we'll be using the unified syntax -- is this right? > > Do you know what the minimum gas version that supports this directive > > is? > > ..syntax unified (binutils supports it since 2005). Hm? That would include 2.17. So is the new vfp syntax separate from UAL-vs-legacy? > and the default is divided syntax > (so inline asm has to use divided syntax or > ".sytax unified" > .... > ".syntax divided") Uhg, and it's the opposite for clang with integrated assembler, right? Thankfully most instructions you'd actually use look the same either way... Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.