This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: GAS .fpu directive
- From: Matt Thomas <matt at 3am-software dot com>
- To: "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:56:01 -0700
- Subject: Re: GAS .fpu directive
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAMSE1keWd0+uUS0fpaC3-yXsnN-z2_Bsa5anwvQAQwXgWuw_Yw at mail dot gmail dot com> <53F4C261 dot 8090900 at redhat dot com> <53F4CB31 dot 9080701 at arm dot com> <1408553484 dot 5894 dot 8 dot camel at otta> <CAMSE1kdDQOuuKhPcF8qasM-PMXBkAKDfjioCmYc39cORV3o4gA at mail dot gmail dot com> <1408562067 dot 5894 dot 23 dot camel at otta> <CAMSE1kfq3CoxR8KWOo6dzgoR4CxyLqyA+_o=ZVU_MfJwHf8-mA at mail dot gmail dot com> <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B0235320EF4632 at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <CAMSE1kdvh+uVriMQV1LeJJYGVY-g7BcO0ZVsESiGUeXs132eBw at mail dot gmail dot com> <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B0235320EF47F9 at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org>
On Aug 21, 2014, at 2:02 AM, Matthew Fortune <Matthew.Fortune@imgtec.com> 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.
I don't know if I can agree with that.
You could have something
.fpu neon
<function neon>
.fpu vfp2
<function vfp2>
and then the caller decides what routine to call depending on the presence
of neon or not (GNU IFUNC per chance). Same could be said for pre-r6 mips
code and mipsr6 mips code. Forcing them to be separate files seems harsh.
I would except the attributes emitted to first match the -mfpu=xxx
option passed to gas, then the first .fpu directive encountered.
Forcing them to be in the "header" makes cpp-processed assembly
more painful than it should be.