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: GAS .fpu directive

On 21 August 2014 10:02, Matthew Fortune <> wrote:
> FWIW given that behaviour my suggestion would be that for .fpu you would
> want to enforce just one .fpu directive and that should precede all code.
> I guess that might break some existing code though but I'd say that is a
> good thing.

That was my original proposal, and one that I'm ready to enforce in
LLVM's ARM assembler as soon as we reach consensus. :)

> Introducing a new directive to select the 'current' fpu may then be
> necessary for some use cases though. The current situation doesn't sound
> good from a hand-coded assembler nor compiler perspective. It seems fairly
> undesirable to allow an inline asm block to affect a module's attributes.


Other directives have the same problem: .cpu, .arch, .arch_extension,
.eabi_attribute, .syntax, etc.

> It seems less likely to occur in hand-written assembler but the results
> would be equally confusing if multiple .fpu directives did appear.

It does, and that's why I started this discussion. This has shown up
while compiling Chromium for Android with LLVM.


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