https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30873
Bug ID: 30873 Summary: [RISC-V] On the failure of ".option arch, +/-" caused by implicit derivation of Zc extension Product: binutils Version: 2.42 (HEAD) Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: binutils Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: mumuxi_ll at outlook dot com Target Milestone: --- Hi, Since Zca is implicited by Zcb/Zcf/Zcd, when I want to restrict part of my assembly code from compiling without the Zc extension(eg:march=rv32ima_zca_zcb_zcf_zcd), I must use the ".option arch, -" like below: .option push .option arch, -zcb .option arch, -zcf .option arch, -zcd .option arch, -zca add x3, x3, x27 ... .option pop If I write like: .option push .option arch, -zca .option arch, -zcb .option arch, -zcf .option arch, -zcd add x3, x3, x27 ... .option pop then the ".option arch, -zca" will not work. So I want to know if this implicit derivation relationship of Zc is necessary, or if there is a better way to solve the ".option arch, -" of Zc. Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.