[Fwd: Re: [PATCH] MIPS32 DSP instructions again]
Ian Lance Taylor
ian@airs.com
Thu Jun 9 19:05:00 GMT 2005
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Thu Jun 9 19:05:00 GMT 2005
- Previous message (by thread): [Fwd: Re: [PATCH] MIPS32 DSP instructions again]
- Next message (by thread): [Fwd: Re: [PATCH] MIPS32 DSP instructions again]
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dominic Sweetman <dom@mips.com> writes: > Which comes down to this: under what circumstances might it be helpful > for the assembler to reject a piece of code which it could have > assembled? In general, it is better to get a compile-time error than a run-time error. For example, suppose some library is written to use the new instructions. Suppose it's a portable library, for various processors. I get the source code for that library, and I compile it with the options appropriate for my processor. Unfortunately, there is a bug, and the library uses an asm statement with an instruction which is not supported on my processor. I would prefer to get a compile-time error rather than a run-time error. Similar examples involving assembly code in a portable OS kernel--say one with builtin graphics support--are also fairly easy to concoct. Ian
- Previous message (by thread): [Fwd: Re: [PATCH] MIPS32 DSP instructions again]
- Next message (by thread): [Fwd: Re: [PATCH] MIPS32 DSP instructions again]
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list