https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26339
Bug ID: 26339
Summary: [aarch64] unknown architectural extensions
Product: binutils
Version: 2.36 (HEAD)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: gas
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: ndesaulniers at google dot com
CC: james.greenhalgh at arm dot com, kristof.beyls at gmail dot
com,
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
It seems like for some of the aarch64 ISA extensions, there's varying levels of
support for the different .arch_extension directives. I noticed that LLVM has
a unit test
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/test/MC/AArch64/directive-arch_extension.s.
If I run that through ToT 2.35.50.20200805, I get failures for:
selected processor does not support `irg x0,x1'
selected processor does not support `sm4e v2.4s,v15.4s'
selected processor does not support system register name 'cvadp'
selected processor does not support system register name 'cvap'
selected processor does not support system register name 's1e1wp'
unknown architectural extension `ccdp'
unknown architectural extension `ccpp'
unknown architectural extension `mte'
unknown architectural extension `pan-rwv'
unknown architectural extension `tlb-rmi'
I suspect that the `selected processor does not support` warnings require an
additional flag, but the `unknown architectural extensions` are the ones I'm
more curious about. Maybe there's things we can change on the LLVM side, too,
I'm just more concerned about having compatibility between tools.
Additional background:
1.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200805181920.4013059-1-samitolva...@google.com/
2. https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1106
3.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200805181920.4013059-1-samitolva...@google.com/T/#u
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
