[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151016003313.GZ10551@port70.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 02:33:13 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: status of armhf asm with VFP instructions
* 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).
and the default is divided syntax
(so inline asm has to use divided syntax or
".sytax unified"
...
".syntax divided")
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.
