Home Original page

[PATCH v8 05/19] gas: use common code for object attribute v1 & v2 parsing

Matthieu Longo matthieu.longo@arm.com
Thu Aug 14 16:48:58 GMT 2025 
On 2025-08-08 12:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.07.2025 13:39, Matthieu Longo wrote:
>> Since the previous patch added all the code to be able to parse both
>> OAv1 and OAv2 directives, this patch switches OAv1 to use this common
>> code.
>> Additionally to the common code in obj-elf.c, the following backends
>> using a custom object attribute directive were impacted.
>>    - ARC
>>    - Arm
>>    - m68k
>>    - PowerPC
>>    - RISC-V
>>    - TI C6X
>> A parsing test for Arm had to be adapted to the error messages of the
>> new parser.
>>
>> The gas and ld test suites were successfully run for the following
>> backends: S390, ARC, Arm, CSky, m68k, msp430, PowerPC, TI C6X, RISC-V,
>> AArch64, MIPS, SPARC.
>> ---
>>   gas/config/obj-elf-attr.c           | 116 ----------------------------
>>   gas/config/obj-elf-attr.h           |   5 --
>>   gas/config/obj-elf.c                |   5 --
>>   gas/config/tc-arc.c                 |   2 +-
>>   gas/config/tc-arm.c                 |   2 +-
>>   gas/config/tc-m68k.c                |   2 +-
>>   gas/config/tc-ppc.c                 |   2 +-
>>   gas/config/tc-riscv.c               |   2 +-
>>   gas/config/tc-tic6x.c               |   2 +-
>>   gas/testsuite/gas/arm/attr-syntax.d |   6 +-
>>   10 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 133 deletions(-)
> 
> Such a diffstat is close to being okay all by itself. There's just one part
> I don't understand:
> 
>> --- a/gas/testsuite/gas/arm/attr-syntax.d
>> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/arm/attr-syntax.d
>> @@ -1,4 +1,8 @@
>>   #source: attr-syntax.s
>>   #notarget: *-*-pe
>>   #as:
>> -#error: :1: Error: Attribute name not recognised: made_up_tag.*:3: Error: expected <tag> , <value>.*:5: Error: expected <tag> , <value>
> 
> This looks odd, and so do ...
> 
>> +#error: \A[^\n]*\.s: Assembler messages:\n
>> +#error: [^\n]*\.s:[0-9]+: Error: unknown identifier 'made_up_tag'\n
>> +#error: [^\n]*\.s:[0-9]+: Error: could not parse attribute tag\n
>> +#error: [^\n]*\.s:[0-9]+: Error: unexpected comma before parameter 1\n
>> +#error: [^\n]*\.s:[0-9]+: Error: missing comma after parameter 1
> 
> ... all the trailing \n here. Would this better be converted to the more
> common #error_output: form?
> 
> Jan

Even if all those '\n' make the patterns ugly, I would prefer to keep 
those 5 lines inside the same file. It is easier to understand the test 
when the information is all in one place. Creating a new file for those 
seems unneeded in my opinion.

Let's see what Richard Earnshaw advise on that, he should be back from 
vacations next week.

Matthieu
More information about the Binutils mailing list