From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8681 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: status of armhf asm with VFP instructions Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:03:46 -0400 Message-ID: <20151016010346.GC8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20151015223320.GW10551@port70.net> <20151015224425.GA8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20151015231606.GX10551@port70.net> <20151016000056.GB8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20151016003313.GZ10551@port70.net> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444957449 18453 80.91.229.3 (16 Oct 2015 01:04:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:04:09 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-8693-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Oct 16 03:04:04 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZmtRB-0000ND-KZ for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:04:01 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 10185 invoked by uid 550); 16 Oct 2015 01:03:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 10163 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2015 01:03:58 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151016003313.GZ10551@port70.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:8681 Archived-At: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 02:33:13AM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Rich Felker [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