From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 60344 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2018 21:44:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 60329 invoked by uid 89); 29 Oct 2018 21:44:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_1,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:44:55 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id w9TLifHJ013003; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:44:42 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id w9TLidiB012994; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:44:39 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 23:15:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Christophe Lyon Cc: Richard Earnshaw , christophe lyon St , gcc Patches Subject: Re: [ARM/FDPIC v3 03/21] [ARM] FDPIC: Force FDPIC related options unless -mno-fdpic is provided Message-ID: <20181029214439.GA5994@gate.crashing.org> References: <20181011133518.17258-1-christophe.lyon@st.com> <20181011133518.17258-4-christophe.lyon@st.com> <26314d4c-d0cf-05c0-9460-e1df2a6147cd@arm.com> <13da7741-e438-25bc-2825-1aebd79a4767@arm.com> <20181023145716.GK5205@gate.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-10/txt/msg01864.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 02:45:20PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote: > Here is an updated doc proposal (that would go in patch #1, without > changing this one): > @item -mfdpic > @opindex mfdpic > Select the FDPIC ABI, which uses function descriptors to represent > pointers to functions. When the compiler is configured for > @code{arm-*-uclinuxfdpiceabi} targets, this option is on by default > and implies @option{-fPIE} if none of the PIC/PIE-related options is > provided. On other targets, it only enables the FDPIC-specific code > generation features, and the user should explicitly provide the > PIC/PIE-related options as needed. Most other things seem to put -mno-fdpic in an @itemx and mno-fdpic in an @opindex as well, in similar cases. > The opposite @option{-mno-fdpic} option is useful (and required) to > build the Linux kernel using the same toolchain as the one used to > build the userland programs. > > Is it clearer? Does it read OK? It reads fine I think. Segher