jroelofs added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39534#915937, @mstorsjo wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39534#915935, @jroelofs wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39534#915920, @mstorsjo wrote: > > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39534#915916, @compnerd wrote: > > > > > > > Very well, if thats the current implementation in the AsmParser, thats > > > > reasonable. I don't think that the directive has anything to do with > > > > the file format though. > > > > > > > > > I can agree with that. In addition to making the assembler accept/reject > > > certain instructions though, it actually does another thing which > > > actually is file format specific - it sets the eabi attributes that > > > indicates that the object file contains such instructions. > > > > > > Are they eabi/gnueabi things? > > > I think so. You can read them with `readelf -A foo.o`, and override them with > manual `.eabi_attribute` attributes. (That's useful e.g. for indicating that > while a binary contains NEON instructions, it doesn't strict require them for > running. E.g. raspbian does check such tags for checking that all binaries > work on their baseline of armv6.) i.e. should this be keyed off of `__ARM_EABI__` instead? Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D39534 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
