SVC is not permitted on this architecture

I believe this is "solved" by specifying "-march=armv6s-m -mthumb" rather than "-march=armv6-m -mthumb", although the presence or lack of presence of an operating system should have little sway over what instructions are "permitted" to be generated by the assembler.

The concept of permission to generate an instruction is a completely unnecessary obstacle that is not specified by ARM, afaik. Therefore, this problem should not have to be "solved" in the first place.

Corollary via inconsistence: why would "-march=armv7-m" enable the assembler to always be "permitted" to generate svc?

Hi,

The unprivileged/privileged extension is optional for armv6-m architecture implementation.[1] Without this extension, it will not support Supervisor Call (SVC). If you want to use SVC, you need to specify the target of -march=armv6s-m.

It will also be better to use -mcpu=cortex-m0 rather than -march=armv6-m, because CPUs like Cortex-m0, Coetex-m0+ are implemented with the unprivileged/privileged extension.

BR,
Tony

[1]You can find more information about such extension in the section A1.2 and A4.9 in the ARMv6m Architecture Reference Manual.

The specification says that SVC is supported in all versions of the Thumb
instruction set in the section I referenced earlier.

Furthermore, if you had thoroughly read the section you referenced, you
would have seen the note:

[quote]
In an ARMv6-M implementation that does not include the
Unprivileged/Privileged Extension,
execution is always privileged.

[emphasis added] However in such an implementation, application code might
use
supervisor calls to maintain a software hierarchy with a system
kernel.[/emphasis added]
[/quote]

Shall I file the bug upstream as well?

Thank you.

C

On Apr 30, 2015 3:05 AM, "Tony Liu" <email address hidden> wrote:
> The unprivileged/privileged extension is optional for armv6-m
> architecture implementation.[1] Without this extension, it will not
> support Supervisor Call (SVC). If you want to use SVC, you need to
> specify the target of -march=armv6s-m.
>
> It will also be better to use -mcpu=cortex-m0 rather than
> -march=armv6-m, because CPUs like Cortex-m0, Coetex-m0+ are implemented
> with the unprivileged/privileged extension.
>
> BR,
> Tony
>
> [1]You can find more information about such extension in the section
> A1.2 and A4.9 in the ARMv6m Architecture Reference Manual.
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1449610
>
> Title:
> SVC is not permitted on this architecture
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded/+bug/1449610/+subscriptions

Just to clarify, if it isn't already in the spec somewhere else, if a
particular hardware implementation does not support the privilege
extension, it should interpret SVC as a NOP.

Compiler vendors (such as GNU) should use the extension "-march=armv6s-m"
(or equivalent) for optimizing-out SVC if such a level of optimization is
requested (e.g. "-O3").

Alternatively, leave it implementation defined as to whether the
instruction generates an UNDEFINED or NOPs.

At most, GCC should issue a warning for "-march=armv6-m" upon SVC.
Preferably with "-Wall".