From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-513261-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 126545 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2019 14:46:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 126522 invoked by uid 89); 13 Nov 2019 14:46:19 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=Earnshaw, earnshaw
X-HELO: mail-lf1-f67.google.com
Received: from mail-lf1-f67.google.com (HELO mail-lf1-f67.google.com) (209.85.167.67) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 14:46:18 +0000
Received: by mail-lf1-f67.google.com with SMTP id o65so2149646lff.13        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:46:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=linaro.org; s=google;        h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to         :cc;        bh=LDpJjrt47VNMXZhxJp+JRl1vwWbnpepRmLJW7IALd60=;        b=IDWRw2MBUYnyub9Fg43zHC8BVyFRwF19Tbm9R2ycX6IJKF6JsIlQKlxBH1j5HFXgoH         iXVDeX8e+pW3zcOWbCIKWvbW3aXhyoiNZgO+ElKlaIDX6xrb2nQ0H7kGbgEK5kl3YMzo         EB0YGTHNAEHFxwtXJPM4hcZE98eVvUmB1lYKYiRSyFFwgT5Tqe3g04nJZc/8ALGv3SBY         jmP6gk3ch0P6RzEWxb+krGC7PQ4FYbwg3j2yg1N4U28M+EhtPmuLVXM1aBovhzCkqTlK         vkJ/8MJCxcp27eJjn0E3RLVeovxlFPw8ZhnfunzKNQHIsP+5uc220A3n5wFidQy+wT9e         AlHg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKdteObyFGLY0bp7z5saUJca-Wy0OOhEkT75Ffv9SMzrJjJUhg@mail.gmail.com> <44ca2b03-4a19-424b-5f6d-eef9af8b9f69@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <44ca2b03-4a19-424b-5f6d-eef9af8b9f69@arm.com>
From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 14:46:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAKdteOZNpyh_DuJv=8DXm9Z74wrXpOPaW43WOonXJRA5g4z6LA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [ARM] Add support for -mpure-code in thumb-1 (v6m)
To: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
Cc: gcc Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2019-11/txt/msg01054.txt.bz2

On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:13, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
<Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 18/10/2019 14:18, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > +      bool not_supported = arm_arch_notm || flag_pic || TARGET_NEON;
> >
>
> This is a poor name in the context of the function as a whole.  What's
> not supported.  Please think of a better name so that I have some idea
> what the intention is.

That's to keep most of the code common when checking if -mpure-code
and -mslow-flash-data are supported.
These 3 cases are common to the two compilation flags, and
-mslow-flash-data still needs to check TARGET_HAVE_MOVT in addition.

Would "common_unsupported_modes" work better for you?
Or I can duplicate the "arm_arch_notm || flag_pic || TARGET_NEON" in
the two tests.

Thanks,

Christophe

>
> R.