[Bug binutils/30873] New: [RISC-V] On the failure of ".option arch, +/-" caused by implicit derivation of Zc extension

[mumuxi_ll at outlook dot com]

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.