On 20 February 2014 12:59, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> It's not really because GAS supports it, but there exists a large body
> of code out there which uses inline assembler with pre-UAL syntax. I'm
> not sure people will appreciate a blanket break in one version of the
> toolchain and especiall
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 19 February 2014 23:19, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> With the unified assembly format, you should not need those
>> .arm/.thumb and in fact emitting them can make things even worse.
>
> If only we could get rid or all pre-UAL inline assembly o
On 19/02/14 23:19, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
>> On 19 February 2014 11:58, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> I agree that having an unrecognised asm shouldn't be a hard error until
>>> assembly time though. Saleem, is the problem that this is being
On 20 February 2014 10:11, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> The current behaviour is that when the compiler generates code for
> Thumb1 and Thumb2 we switch back to the appropriate state after inline
> assembler is emitted. We don't switch back to ARM state on the (fairly
> robust) assumption that mo
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
>> On 19 February 2014 11:58, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> I agree that having an unrecognised asm shouldn't be a hard error until
>>> assembly time though. Saleem, is the problem th
On 19 February 2014 23:19, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> With the unified assembly format, you should not need those
> .arm/.thumb and in fact emitting them can make things even worse.
If only we could get rid or all pre-UAL inline assembly on the planet... :)
The has been the only reason why we added
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 19 February 2014 11:58, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> I agree that having an unrecognised asm shouldn't be a hard error until
>> assembly time though. Saleem, is the problem that this is being rejected
>> earlier?
>
> Hi Andrew, Richard,
On 19 February 2014 11:58, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> I agree that having an unrecognised asm shouldn't be a hard error until
> assembly time though. Saleem, is the problem that this is being rejected
> earlier?
Hi Andrew, Richard,
Thanks for your reviews! We agree that we should actually just
Andrew Pinski writes:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool
> wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> I am sending this at the behest of Renato. I have been working on the ARM
>> integrated assembler in LLVM and came across an interesting item in the Linux
>> kernel.
>>
>> I am wondering if this
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool
wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I am sending this at the behest of Renato. I have been working on the ARM
> integrated assembler in LLVM and came across an interesting item in the Linux
> kernel.
>
> I am wondering if this is an unstated covenant between th
Hello.
I am sending this at the behest of Renato. I have been working on the ARM
integrated assembler in LLVM and came across an interesting item in the Linux
kernel.
I am wondering if this is an unstated covenant between the kernel and GCC or
simply a clever use of an unintended/undefined behav
11 matches
Mail list logo
