This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils 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: [PATCH, GAS/ARM] Allow assembly of IT blocks with AL condition

On 22/03/2017 11:44:46, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> It would also be nice to have an error test that shows that 'ite al'
> generates a suitable diagnostic.

Noted, I'll add one shortly.

> Is 'al' mandatory within such a block, or would we accept 'mov	r0, #0'?
> (I'd be inclined to say we shouldn't, but that could be debated).

The current behaviour with the patch accepts 'mov	r0, #0' within the IT
block, as the 'al' suffix is implicit if there isn't a conditional suffix.
Would it be preferable to explicitly demand the 'al' suffix in this particular
instance for clarity?

> What happens when -mimplicit-it=always is on and I write 'moval r0, #0'
> outside of an explicit IT block?  Do I get a normal instruction, or does
> it insert an IT instruction before it?

The behaviour of implicit IT blocks is unaffected, so 'moval' on its own should
always give the normal instruction as again the 'al' suffix is considered
implicit if no conditional suffix is specified.


Prakhar Bahuguna

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