[llvm-dev] compatibility with gnu binutils (original) (raw)

Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Feb 6 15:13:01 PST 2020

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 11:46:26AM -0800, Jordan Rupprecht via llvm-dev wrote:

> Where was this policy, which sounds like replicating their design mistakes bug-for-bug, agreed upon and documented? James responded already, but just to add my perspective: on the subject of llvm vs gnu binutils compatibility, I've heard everything in the range from "let's do our own completely separate thing" to "let's be byte-for-byte compatible". The general consensus is closer towards the closer compatibility side, so the happy medium we've tried to apply is "be gnu compatible, except when it doesn't make sense" -- support for ancient platforms, bugs, weird formatting, etc. We definitely take things on a case by case basis, there's no firm policy that we replicate all the bugs.

So given that we got around with this for years, how much use do non-lower case assembler pseudops actually see?

Joerg

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list