This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA] [ARM] Fix Neon Alignment Syntax acceptance

On 13 August 2012 11:46, Iniyan <> wrote:
> Matthew Gretton-Dann <matthew.gretton-dann <at>> writes:
>> All,
>> Please can someone review, and approve the attached patch?
>> Most Neon load/store instructions accept an optional alignment
>> parameter.  The current syntax accepted by gas requires a comma before
>> the alignment parameter.  However, this is not what was originally
>> intended, and this patch corrects that.  We still accept the current
>> syntax as well.
>> This means that the following are now both valid:
>>       VLD1.8 {d0}, [r1, :128]
>>       VLD1.8 {d0}, [r1 :128]
>> We disassemble to the second form.
>> Proposed ChangeLogs:
> Hello
> I am getting this error with thr 4.7 compiler, is this a code issue or a
> compiler issue? I am able to compile teh same code with 4.5 gcc without issues.
> /tmp/cc6UDvhG.s: Assembler messages:
> /tmp/cc6UDvhG.s:817: Error: bad alignment -- `vld1.16 {d16},[fp:128]'
> /tmp/cc6UDvhG.s:850: Error: bad alignment -- `vld1.16 {d0},[r9:128]'
> /tmp/cc6UDvhG.s:864: Error: bad alignment -- `vld1.16 {d15},[r7:128]'
> /tmp/cc6UDvhG.s:870: Error: bad alignment -- `vld1.16 {d14},[r6:128]'

This looks to me like a compiler issue. Despite the example I gave in
the original patch vld1.16 {d14}, [r6 :128] is not valid [1].

VLD1 of multiple single elements can only take a 128-bit alignment
specifier when loading 2 or 4 d-registers.

Please raise a bug report at including a
pre-processed test case.



[1] The patch referenced only changed whether you needed a comma
before the alignment specifier or not.

Matthew Gretton-Dann
Linaro Toolchain Working Group

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]