From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3061 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2011 16:10:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 2920 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2011 16:09:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,TW_BL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com (HELO mail-qy0-f182.google.com) (209.85.216.182) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:09:40 +0000 Received: by qyk27 with SMTP id 27so2073372qyk.20 for ; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:09:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.137.30 with SMTP id u30mr1788036qat.80.1307376579552; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:09:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.67.20 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:09:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DECA44F.9060502@codesourcery.com> References: <4DC8DFF6.4000600@codesourcery.com> <4DDEF499.9090206@linaro.org> <4DE4BCE2.8050501@codesourcery.com> <4DECA2B9.3010101@codesourcery.com> <4DECA44F.9060502@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [ARM] TLS Descriptor support From: Ramana Radhakrishnan To: Nathan Sidwell Cc: GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg00425.txt.bz2 On 6 June 2011 10:56, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 06/06/11 10:53, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >>> >>> If you're asking something else, can you rephrase the question? >> >> Sorry if I wasn't too clear. =A0My question really should have read "why >> do we have to special case Thumb2" ? The linker should be able to >> veneer the t-> =A0a calls either through the veneering sequence (in case >> of T1 without blx) or convert the bl to a blx (modulo the case with >> out of range branches). As I said I'm probably missing something here. > > Maybe we don't. =A0It just seems neater to emit blx on arches that have i= t. > In which case the test should probably read - (arm_arch5 && TARGET_THUMB) rather than (TARGET_THUMB2) since blx exists since v5t cheers Ramana