Re: status of armhf asm with VFP instructions

[Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>]

* Rich Felker <dalias@libc.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")