On 14/01/15 09:54, Terry Guo wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> According to the latest EABI at
> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0045d/IHI0045D_ABI_adden
> da.pdf, the new definition of Tag_ABI_HardFP_use is as below:
>
> Tag_ABI_HardFP_use, (=27), uleb128
> 0 The user intended that FP use should be implied by Tag_FP_arch
> 1 The user intended this code to execute on the single-precision variant
> derived from Tag_FP_arch
> 2 Reserved
> 3 The user intended that FP use should be implied by Tag_FP_arch
> (Note: This is a deprecated duplicate of the default encoded by 0)
>
You don't need to emit tags that have the value 0. That's the default
for missing tags.
So you only need
if (TARGET_HARD_FLOAT && TARGET_VFP_SINGLE)
=> Tag_ABI_HardFP_use = 1
OK with that change.
R.
> The attached patch intends to update gcc to conform this definition. Tested
> with GCC regression test, no regressions. Is it OK?
>
> BR,
> Terry
>
> 2015-01-14 Terry Guo <terry....@arm.com>
>
> * config/arm/arm.c (arm_file_start): Update the assignment of
> Tag_ABI_HardFP_use.
>
>
> gcc-update-Tag_ABI_HardFP_use-v2.txt
>
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
> index 0ec526b..378bed9 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c
> @@ -25576,7 +25576,13 @@ arm_file_start (void)
> if (arm_fpu_desc->model == ARM_FP_MODEL_VFP)
> {
> if (TARGET_HARD_FLOAT)
> - arm_emit_eabi_attribute ("Tag_ABI_HardFP_use", 27, 3);
> + {
> + if (TARGET_VFP_SINGLE)
> + arm_emit_eabi_attribute ("Tag_ABI_HardFP_use", 27, 1);
> + else
> + arm_emit_eabi_attribute ("Tag_ABI_HardFP_use", 27, 0);
> + }
> +
> if (TARGET_HARD_FLOAT_ABI)
> arm_emit_eabi_attribute ("Tag_ABI_VFP_args", 28, 1);
> }
>
