Hi Thomas,

Thanks for the confirm 😉

Let’s see if we can refine this part from a coding perspective.

/Ken

From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Törnblom via TF-M
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:53 PM
To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [TF-M] Inline asm syntax unified and symbol reference in IAR toolchain

Hi Ken,

We have an open ticket for just consuming the ".syntax unified", which is set to be fixed in a future update.

I've tested your suggestion for "#pragma required" and it doesn't seem to work.

Cheers,
Thomas

Den 2021-10-19 kl. 09:22, skrev Ken Liu via TF-M:

Hi Thomas and all,

I noticed there are some

#if !defined(__ICCARM__)

".syntax unified \n"

#endif

In source code, looks like ï¿½.syntax unifiedï¿½ is not support in IAR, is that true? If it could not be supported in a short term, we can define some wrapper such as:

#ifdef __ICCARM__

#define CLAIM_SYNTAX_UNIFIED ï¿½\nï¿½

#else

#define CLAIM_SYNTAX_UNIFIED ".syntax unified \n"

#endif

Another question is about the:

#if defined(__ICCARM__)

#pragma required = do_schedule

#endif

If we claim do_schedule in the constraints, is the above ï¿½#pragma requiredï¿½ still needed?

__asm (ï¿½ï¿½. :: ï¿½iï¿½(do_schedule));

We can create a patch to test this ï¿½ using a constraint looks more proper.

Thanks.

/Ken

--

Thomas Tï¿½rnblom, Product Engineer
IAR Systems AB
Box 23051, Strandbodgatan 1
SE-750 23 Uppsala, SWEDEN
Mobile: +46 76 180 17 80 Fax: +46 18 16 78 01
E-mail: thomas.tornblom@iar.com Website: www.iar.com
Twitter: www.twitter.com/iarsystems