[LLVMdev] .thumb_set

[Rafael Espíndola]

For what it is worth it, gas has this strange behaviour.

I agree it is strange, but why is it an issue for r239440? Will I get
a failure if I revert it?

Cheers,
Rafael


On 12 June 2015 at 12:17, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com> wrote:
> Hey Salem,
>
> Any chance you’ve had time to take a look at this?
>
> If you prefer, I can prepare a patch with the change i’d like to make and we
> can see if you are happy with it.
>
> Cheers,
> Pete
>
> On Jun 9, 2015, at 4:09 PM, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> Saleem, in 2014 you added the .thumb_set test case.  I’ve found a difference
> in behaviour of .thumb_set compared to .set.  I was hoping to resolve this
> difference as it will allow me to reapply r239440.
>
> The issue i’m seeing is that we define an alpha function, then beta
> function, then assign alpha to beta.  But given that beta has already been
> defined, this would mean we are redefining it at the point of the
> .thumb_set:
>
> .text
> .thumb
>
> .thumb_set alias_defined_data, bedazzle
>
> .type alpha,%function
> alpha:
> nop
>
>         .type beta,%function
> beta:
> bkpt
>
> .thumb_set beta, alpha
>
> The above code currently passes.  However, if I change .thumb_set to .set
> then I get
>
> ../test/MC/ARM/thumb_set.s:60:13: error: redefinition of 'beta'
>         .set beta, alpha
>
> I would like to make .thumb_set throw the same error here as I believe that
> is how it should behave in this case.
>
> Please let me know if you are ok with this, or some other approach.  I’m
> unfamiliar with it so its possible that what i’ve found isn’t a bug at all
> but just how we want it to behave.
>
> Cheers,
> Pete
>
>