mstorsjo added a comment. In D60417#1459128 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60417#1459128>, @jeremfg wrote:
> In D60417#1458778 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60417#1458778>, @mstorsjo wrote: > > > The change looks sensible to me, but should we maybe even skip the `#if` > > altogether? If the files uses unified syntax and can't be parsed in thumb > > mode otherwise, there's maybe no need for conditionals at all? > > > I'm no expert but I just read that UAL (Unified Assembler Language), while > being backward compatible with the old ARM syntax, is **not** compatible with > the previous Thumb syntax. > > http://downloads.ti.com/docs/esd/SPNU118/unified-assembly-language-syntax-support-spnu1184444.html > > But again, perhaps it doesn't matter in the specific case that concerns us > here? I guess it depends on whether the code in the ###if > !defined(__ARM_ARCH_ISA_ARM) && __ARM_ARCH_ISA_THUMB == 1## condition that > follows contains only valid UAL syntax as well. Which I am not qualified to > confirm or not. Oh, sorry, I was sloppy and didn't actually check the rest of the file to see the existing conditional alternative codepaths with `!defined(__ARM_ARCH_ISA_ARM) && __ARM_ARCH_ISA_THUMB == 1`. Given that, the suggested form of this patch is indeed correct - sorry for the noise. I can commit the patch for you, but I'd need approval by either of @EricWF, @ldionne or @mclow.lists first. Repository: rUNW libunwind CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D60417/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D60417 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
