This is the mail archive of the
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
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.