On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyr...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On Mar 2, 2015, at 4:44 AM, Terry Guo <terry....@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....@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
