From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 63516 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2019 15:31:53 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 63500 invoked by uid 89); 17 Dec 2019 15:31:52 -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=simplest, states 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 15:31:50 +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 658081FB; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:31:49 -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 D8ABF3F67D; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:31:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [ARM] Add support for -mpure-code in thumb-1 (v6m) To: Christophe Lyon Cc: Richard Earnshaw , gcc Patches References: <44ca2b03-4a19-424b-5f6d-eef9af8b9f69@arm.com> From: Kyrill Tkachov Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:39:00 -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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg01198.txt.bz2 On 12/17/19 2:33 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 11:34, Kyrill Tkachov > wrote: >> Hi Christophe, >> >> On 11/18/19 9:00 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: >>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 15:46, Christophe Lyon >>> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:13, Richard Earnshaw (lists) >>>> 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. > OK, thanks! > >> 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). >> > I didn't think about this :( > It currently says: "This option is only available when generating > non-pic code for M-profile targets with the MOVT instruction." > > I suggest to remove the "with the MOVT instruction" part. Is that OK > if I commit my patch and this doc change? Yes, I think that is simplest correct change to make. Thanks, Kyrill > Christophe > >> Thanks, >> >> Kyrill >> >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Christophe >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Christophe >>>> >>>>> R.