On 08 Dec 2008, at 00:33, Prince Riley wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Jonas Maebe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
On 07 Dec 2008, at 23:01, Prince Riley wrote:
"FPC does not specify any particular sub-architecture to the
assembler."
was not an opinion or a guess, but a fact. What sub-architecture
the GNU
assembler picks in that case (i.e., by default) was the guess.
My point is saying 'guess' was not to discredit your statement about
what
the FP compiler does, rather to say that no one seems to know
exactly what
ARM option FP sends to the GNU Assembler and what that option value
actually
is.
I don't understand how the following are not in contradiction:
a) "FPC does not specify any particular sub-architecture to the
assembler." (me)
b) "no one seems to know exactly what ARM option FP sends to the GNU
Assembler" (you)
The answer is still "FPC passes no ARM sub-architecture option to the
assembler."
Reading the GNU as manual, the arch parameter value needs to be set
to one
of several values. It can also specify generic ARM architecture, but
that
choice in addition to being imprecise, could result in code that
either is
not optimized for the target ARM processor, or fail to execute as
expected.
It will at most cause the assembler to reject opcodes for particular
ARM sub-architectures that do not exist in the default sub-
architecture (which without a doubt is a generic and common ARM
variant). Crashes only occur if you tell the assembler to accept e.g.
ARMv6 opcodes, and you genere such opcodes, and then you try to run
the program on an ARMv4 cpu. I'm not aware of any optimisations that
the assembler can perform for different ARM architectures (except for
some small THUMB things, but FPC doesn't generate THUMB code).
Jonas
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
