On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Terry Guo <flameroc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov
> <maxim.kuvyrkov@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On Mar 2, 2015, at 4:44 AM, Terry Guo <terry.guo@arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> If target mode isn't specified via either gcc configuration option
>>> --with-mode or command line, this patch intends to improve gcc driver to
>>> automatically add option -mthumb for thumb-only target. Tested with gcc
>>> regression test for various arm targets, no regression. Is it OK?
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> Terry
>>>
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> 2015-03-02  Terry Guo  <terry.guo@arm.com>
>>>
>>>        * common/config/arm/arm-common.c (arm_is_target_thumb_only): New
>>> function.
>>>        * config/arm/arm-protos.h (FL_ Macros): Move to ...
>>>        * config/arm/arm-opts.h (FL_ Macros): ... here.
>>>        (struct arm_arch_core_flag): New struct.
>>>        (arm_arch_core_flags): New array for arch/core and flag map.
>>>        * config/arm/arm.h (MODE_SET_SPEC_FUNCTIONS): Define new SPEC
>>> function.
>>>        (EXTRA_SPEC_FUNCTIONS): Include new SPEC function.
>>>        (MODE_SET_SPECS): New SPEC.
>>>        (DRIVER_SELF_SPECS): Include new SPEC.<gcc-mthumb-option-v5.txt>
>>
>> Did you consider approach of implementing this purely inside cc1 rather than driver?
>>
>> We do not seem to need to pass -mthumb to assembler or linker since those will pick up ARM-ness / Thumb-ness from function annotations.  Therefore we need to handle -marm / -mthumb for cc1 only.  What am I missing?
>>
>> Also, what's the significance of moving FL_* flags to arm-opts.h?  If you had to separate FL_* definitions from the rest of arm-protos.h, then a new dedicated file (e.g., arm-fl.h) would be a better choice for new home of FL_* definitions.
>>
>
> Please find my answers in another email. The attached patch tries to
> follow your idea that puts those FL_* into separate file named
> arm-flags.h. Does it look good to you?
>
> BR,
> Terry

Sorry for missing patch.