From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14132 invoked by alias); 23 Sep 2014 15:22:34 -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 14121 invoked by uid 89); 23 Sep 2014 15:22:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:22:32 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1XWRvA-0001Sd-Ds from Andrew_Stubbs@mentor.com ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:22:28 -0700 Received: from EU-MBX-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([169.254.4.147]) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:22:27 +0100 From: "Stubbs, Andrew" To: James Greenhalgh CC: Richard Earnshaw , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: RE: [arm][patch] fix arm_neon_ok check on !arm_arch7 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <5414B99D.3020202@codesourcery.com> <5416B580.9070208@arm.com> <5416C5C3.8070603@codesourcery.com>,<20140923082716.GA28745@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20140923082716.GA28745@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg01984.txt.bz2 Maybe the original patch is better? Or maybe it should reconfigure the FPU = instead of erroring out? But reconfigure it to what? Andrew ________________________________________ From: James Greenhalgh [james.greenhalgh@arm.com] Sent: 23 September 2014 09:27 To: Stubbs, Andrew Cc: Richard Earnshaw; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [arm][patch] fix arm_neon_ok check on !arm_arch7 On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:56:03AM +0100, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > On 15/09/14 10:46, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > Hmm, I wonder if arm_override_options should reject neon + (arch < 7). > > Is this more to your taste? Is this really such a good idea? It causes carnage throughout the testsuite if you have configured with support for Neon and the testcase is written with dg-options for a pre-armv7-a -march value. For example in: testsuite/gcc.target/arm/di-longlong64-sync-withhelpers.c Which forces -march=3Darmv5. Perhaps you just have to fix the effective-target-ok tests - but then we lose swathes of test coverage. Thanks, James > > Andrew > > P.S. arm_override_options was renamed in 2010. > 2014-09-15 Andrew Stubbs > > * gcc/config/arm/arm.c (arm_option_override): Reject -mfpu=3Dneon > when architecture is older than ARMv7. > > Index: gcc/config/arm/arm.c > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > --- gcc/config/arm/arm.c (revision 215228) > +++ gcc/config/arm/arm.c (working copy) > @@ -2845,6 +2845,9 @@ > > arm_fpu_desc =3D &all_fpus[arm_fpu_index]; > > + if (TARGET_NEON && !arm_arch7) > + error ("target CPU does not support NEON"); > + > switch (arm_fpu_desc->model) > { > case ARM_FP_MODEL_VFP: