Matthew Fortune <matthew.fort...@imgtec.com> writes:
> Are you're OK with automatically selecting fpxx if no -mfp option, no
> .module and no .gnu_attribute exists? Such code would currently end up
> as FP ABI Any even if FP code was present, I don't suppose anything
> would get worse if this existing behaviour simply continued though.
The -mfp setting is usually implied by the -mabi setting. I don't
think we should change that. Since this is a new mode, and since
the fpxx markup will be available from the start, everyone using
fpxx should say so explicitly.
E.g. maybe the rules should be:
(1) Any explicit .gnu_attribute 4 is always used, although we might
give a diagnostic if it's incompatible with the module-level setting.
(2) Otherwise, if the code does not use FP then the attribute is left
at the default of 0.
(3) Otherwise, a nonzero .gnu_attribute 4 is implied from the module-level
setting.
(4) For compatibility, -mabi=32 continues to imply -mfp32. fpxx mode must
be selected explicitly.
Which was supposed to be simple, but maybe isn't so much.
Thanks,
Richard
