This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC 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: [ARM] Is TARGET_UNIFIED_ASM still needed?

On 23/07/14 09:55, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 22/07/14 16:23, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:

On 22/07/14 14:14, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,

In the arm backend we've got this TARGET_UNIFIED_ASM macro that is
currently on for TARGET_THUMB2 with a comment that says:
/* We could use unified syntax for arm mode, but for now we just use it
      for Thumb-2.  */

I've been doing some work converting the pre-UAL floating point
mnemonics to unified syntax and it seems if we were to strictly adhere
to this TARGET_UNIFIED_ASM I would have to guard those changes, which
would be somewhat ugly.
I would just change to UAL and expect it to work because GAS
accepts unified syntax for the floating point instructions even without
.syntax unified.

We need T_U_A until the point of time that the Thumb1 port is converted
to UAL, GAS validated against Thumb1 and the rest of the "arm" port is
converted to UAL and verified with GAS.

Additionally if someone were to do the full transition, remember that
users need to have a way of mixing non-unified syntax in inline
assembler with unified syntax in the rest of the C code.


Is it perhaps time to just drop this and assume unified asm everywhere?


We also need to be able to support User's inline assembly that is not in
unified syntax.  Though that might be a different issue to the one
you're trying to address here.

Thanks for the responses,
I was just thinking that the TARGET_UNIFIED_ASM macro is not honored right now anyway (due to the pre-UAL mnemonics in so we might want to get rid of it. I don't think this would be a user-visible change, now would it reject pre-UAL inline assembly from what I can see in its uses.



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