Inline asm syntax unified and symbol reference in IAR toolchain

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Flash definitions usage

Re: [TF-M] System reset

Ken Liu

19 Oct 2021 19 Oct '21

8:22 a.m.

Hi Thomas and all,

I noticed there are some

#if !defined(__ICCARM__) ".syntax unified \n" #endif

In source code, looks like ".syntax unified" 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 "\n" #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 "#pragma required" still needed?

__asm (".... :: "i"(do_schedule));

We can create a patch to test this - using a constraint looks more proper.

Thanks.

/Ken

Attachments:

attachment.html (text/html — 3.7 KB)

Show replies by thread

Thomas Törnblom

19 Oct 19 Oct

9:53 a.m.

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 “.syntax unified” 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 “\n”

#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 “#pragma required” still needed?

__asm (“…. :: “i”(do_schedule));

We can create a patch to test this – using a constraint looks more proper.

Thanks.

/Ken

-- *Thomas Törnblom*, /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 mailto:thomas.tornblom@iar.com Website: www.iar.com http://www.iar.com Twitter: www.twitter.com/iarsystems http://www.twitter.com/iarsystems

Ken Liu

10:11 a.m.

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.commailto:thomas.tornblom@iar.com Website: www.iar.comhttp://www.iar.com Twitter: www.twitter.com/iarsystemshttp://www.twitter.com/iarsystems

Thomas Törnblom

27 Oct 27 Oct

9:40 a.m.

Hi Ken,

I see you implemented this change anyway in psa_interface_thread.c and other places. This breaks IAR builds unfortunately: --- ... :: "i" (spm_interface_thread_dispatcher) ^ "C:\Users\thomasto\Projects\tf-m13\trusted-firmware-m\secure_fw\spm\cmsis_psa\psa_interface_thread.c",29 Error[Ta094]: Operand modifier a is not valid for operand #spm_interface_thread_dispatcher

:: "i" (tfm_spm_client_psa_framework_version), ^ "C:\Users\thomasto\Projects\tf-m13\trusted-firmware-m\secure_fw\spm\cmsis_psa\psa_interface_thread.c",43 Error[Ta094]: Operand modifier a is not valid for operand #tfm_spm_client_psa_framework_version ... ---

For IAR we need to use the #pragma required method previously used.

/Thomas

Den 2021-10-19 kl. 11:11, skrev Ken Liu via TF-M:

...

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.comWebsite: www.iar.com http://www.iar.com Twitter: www.twitter.com/iarsystems http://www.twitter.com/iarsystems

-- *Thomas Törnblom*, /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 http://www.iar.com Twitter: www.twitter.com/iarsystems http://www.twitter.com/iarsystems

Ken Liu

9:56 a.m.

Hi Thomas,

Yeah, we just noticed quite some ASM problems, creating patches…

/Ken

From: TF-M tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org On Behalf Of Thomas Törnblom via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 4:41 PM To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Inline asm syntax unified and symbol reference in IAR toolchain

Hi Ken,

For IAR we need to use the #pragma required method previously used.

/Thomas Den 2021-10-19 kl. 11:11, skrev Ken Liu via TF-M: 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 mailto: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.orgmailto: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 Törnblom, 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.commailto:thomas.tornblom@iar.com Website: www.iar.comhttp://www.iar.com Twitter: www.twitter.com/iarsystemshttp://www.twitter.com/iarsystems

Ken Liu

12:39 p.m.

Hi Thomas,

I have created a patch:

https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/12145

But my IAR license server is down hence I can not verify it. Could you please help to verify? Feel free to comment or just submit a new patchset (or just patch) to fix the problems met.

And could please to review this file: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/12145/2/secur...

Not sure if this attribute (used) work for the IAR from now on. As we wont support legacy toolchain hence if there are some legacy defs for IAR toolchain we could just skip them – I saw CMSIS checks __ICCARM_V8 also for IAR toolchain.

Thanks.

/Ken

From: TF-M tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 4:57 PM To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd nd@arm.com Subject: Re: [TF-M] Inline asm syntax unified and symbol reference in IAR toolchain

Hi Thomas,

Yeah, we just noticed quite some ASM problems, creating patches…

/Ken

From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.orgmailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Törnblom via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 4:41 PM To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.orgmailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Inline asm syntax unified and symbol reference in IAR toolchain

Hi Ken,

For IAR we need to use the #pragma required method previously used.

/Thomas Den 2021-10-19 kl. 11:11, skrev Ken Liu via TF-M: Hi Thomas,

Thanks for the confirm 😉

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

/Ken

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

922

days inactive

930

days old

tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org

5 comments

participants

tags (0)

participants (2)

Ken Liu
Thomas Törnblom