Re: [PATCH 2/2] [ARM] Add support for -mpure-code in thumb-1 (v6m)

[Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com>]

Hi Christophe,

On 11/18/19 9:00 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 15:46, Christophe Lyon
> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> Here is an updated version, using "common_unsupported_modes" instead
> of "not_supported", and fixing the typo reported by Kyrill.
> The ChangeLog is still the same.
>
> OK?


The name looks ok to me. Richard had a concern about Armv8-M Baseline, 
but I do see it being supported as you pointed out.

So I believe all the concerns are addressed.

Thus the code is ok. However, please also updated the documentation for 
-mpure-code in invoke.texi (it currently states that a MOVT instruction 
is needed).

Thanks,

Kyrill



>
> Thanks,
>
> Christophe
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> > >
> > > R.