Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk> writes:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote:
>
>> Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> The armv8_arm manual [C6.2.226, ROR (immediate)] uses a # in front
>>> of the immediate rotation quantity.
>>>
>>> Although, it seems, GAS is able to infer the # (or is leninent about
>>> its absence) assemblers based on the LLVM back end expect it and error
>>> out.
>>>
>>> tested on aarch64-linux-gnu (gcc115) and aarch64-darwin20 (experimental)
>>
>> Sorry for the slow reply, didn't see this till now.
>
> Hmm .. I did CC you directly ( but having some troubles with this ISP which
> I am
> trying to resolve - emails going missing or have to be re-sent … :/ )
Yeah, I got the message, I just didn't see it, sorry.
>> The patch is OK in principle, and personally I prefer “#”. But how far
>> does this spread? Are only ROR modifiers on logical patterns affected?
>> Or is the use of a paranthesised expression instead of a literal the thing
>> that makes the difference?
>
> perhaps,
Trying it out locally, that does seem to be the difference:
and x1, x2, x3, ror 1 // OK
and x1, x2, x3, ror (1) // Rejected
and x1, x2, x3, ror #(1) // OK
Same for the other modifiers I tried.
That doesn't look intentional, but whether it's intentional obviously
isn't important in this context. So yeah, the patch is OK.
Thanks,
Richard
