Eric Christopher <echri...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Matthew Fortune > <matthew.fort...@imgtec.com> wrote: > > Moore, Catherine <catherine_mo...@mentor.com> writes: > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Steve Ellcey [mailto:sell...@mips.com] > >> > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 3:42 PM > >> > To: Moore, Catherine; matthew.fort...@imgtec.com; echri...@gmail.com; > >> > > >> > 2014-08-08 Steve Ellcey <sell...@mips.com> > >> > > >> > * config/mips/mips.h (ASM_SPEC): Pass float options to assembler. > >> > > >> > diff --git a/gcc/config/mips/mips.h b/gcc/config/mips/mips.h index > >> > 8d7a09f..9a15287 100644 > >> > --- a/gcc/config/mips/mips.h > >> > +++ b/gcc/config/mips/mips.h > >> > @@ -1187,6 +1187,8 @@ struct mips_cpu_info { %{mshared} %{mno- > >> > shared} \ %{msym32} %{mno-sym32} \ %{mtune=*} \ > >> > +%{mhard-float} %{msoft-float} \ > >> > +%{msingle-float} %{mdouble-float} \ > >> > %(subtarget_asm_spec)" > >> > > >> > /* Extra switches sometimes passed to the linker. */ > >> > > >> > >> Hi Steve, > >> The patch itself looks okay, but perhaps a question for Matthew. > >> Does the fact that the assembler requires -msoft-float even if .set > >> softfloat is present in the .s file deliberate behavior? > > > > The assembler requires -msoft-float if .gnu_attribute 4,3 is given. I.e. > the > > overall module options must match the ABI which has been specified. .set > > directives can still be used to override the 'current' options and be > > inconsistent with the overall module and/or .gnu_attribute setting. > > > >> I don't have a problem with passing along the *float* options to gas, > but > >> would hope that the .set options were honored as well. > > > > Yes they should be. > > > >> My short test indicated that the .set *float* options were being ignored > if > >> the correct command line option wasn't present. > > > > I'm not certain what you are describing here. Could you confirm with an > example > > just in case something is not working as expected? > > > > I don't have one offhand, but in skimming the binutils patch I don't > recall seeing anything that tested this combination. May have missed > it though. > > That said, the patch looks ok and if you'd like to add some tests for > .set and the command line options to binutils that'd be great as well.
What sort of coverage do you think we need here? I did exhaustive coverage of anything which can affect the ABI but don't think we need the same for command-line options vs .module vs .set. There were two pre-existing tests: mips-hard-float-flag and mips-double-float-flag which pretty much test these cases I think. Is that OK for now until we identify any other areas which need additional coverage? Matthew
