From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28813 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2011 17:33:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 28802 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Sep 2011 17:33:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:33:32 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1R8bX9-0005HI-0Q from Paul_Brook@mentor.com ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:33:31 -0700 Received: from nowt.org ([172.30.64.129]) by EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:33:29 +0100 Received: from wren.localnet (wren.home [192.168.93.7]) by nowt.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0DF6F6E0; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:33:29 +0100 (BST) From: Paul Brook To: Nick Clifton Subject: Re: RFC: ARM: Add comment enumerating emitted .eabi_attribute tags Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:19:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.0.0-1-amd64; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan , richard.earnshaw@arm.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <4E81FE66.5000206@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4E81FE66.5000206@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201109271833.28851.paul@codesourcery.com> Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-09/txt/msg01756.txt.bz2 > 2. Abandon using a header file at all. Instead use a configure test > to see if we are using an assembler that supports textual names in a > .eabi_attribute directive and if so use the names rather than the numbers. I'm not sure this is mutually exclusive with using a header file, but using the names where possible sounds like a nice idea in principle. There are practical issues with tags introduced in newer EABI revisions (which may not be supported by older assemblers). However you probably need linker support anyway and get the new assembler for free in that case. I wouldn't put money on old binutils working reliably with new gcc in the first place. Paul