From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-516100-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 95661 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2019 10:34:46 -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 95645 invoked by uid 89); 17 Dec 2019 10:34:46 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:1673, states, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit
X-HELO: foss.arm.com
Received: from foss.arm.com (HELO foss.arm.com) (217.140.110.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:34:45 +0000
Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14])	by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D6530E;	Tue, 17 Dec 2019 02:34:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.2.80.62] (e120808-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.80.62])	by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27B8F3F6CF;	Tue, 17 Dec 2019 02:34:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [ARM] Add support for -mpure-code in thumb-1 (v6m)
To: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>, Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
Cc: gcc Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
References: <CAKdteObyFGLY0bp7z5saUJca-Wy0OOhEkT75Ffv9SMzrJjJUhg@mail.gmail.com> <44ca2b03-4a19-424b-5f6d-eef9af8b9f69@arm.com> <CAKdteOZNpyh_DuJv=8DXm9Z74wrXpOPaW43WOonXJRA5g4z6LA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKdteOZvDk4WiL8FUvrOjyMpsZLABK-a8BOO7aiAOp1aUssWGQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com>
Message-ID: <a9d8d59d-603c-02b4-acb4-5ddd61aa326d@foss.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:02:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKdteOZvDk4WiL8FUvrOjyMpsZLABK-a8BOO7aiAOp1aUssWGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg01179.txt.bz2

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.