Re: status of armhf asm with VFP instructions

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 02:33:13AM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * 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).

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