On 19/05/16 17:55, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
On Thursday 19 May 2016 17:42:26 Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Thomas,
I'm not very familiar with the libgcc machinery, but I have a comment on an
arm.h hunk inline.
On 17/05/16 10:58, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
Ping?
*** gcc/ChangeLog ***
2015-11-13 Thomas Preud'homme <thomas.preudho...@arm.com>
* config/arm/elf.h: Use __ARM_ARCH_ISA_THUMB and
__ARM_ARCH_ISA_ARM to
decide whether to prevent some libgcc routines being included for
some
multilibs rather than __ARM_ARCH_6M__ and add comment to indicate
the
link between this condition and the one in
libgcc/config/arm/lib1func.S.
* config/arm/arm.h (TARGET_ARM_V6M): Add check to
TARGET_ARM_ARCH.
(TARGET_ARM_V7M): Likewise.
*** gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog ***
2015-11-10 Thomas Preud'homme <thomas.preudho...@arm.com>
* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_arm_cortex_m):
Use
__ARM_ARCH_ISA_ARM to test for Cortex-M devices.
*** libgcc/ChangeLog ***
2015-12-17 Thomas Preud'homme <thomas.preudho...@arm.com>
* config/arm/bpabi-v6m.S: Fix header comment to mention Thumb-1
rather
than ARMv6-M.
* config/arm/lib1funcs.S (__prefer_thumb__): Define among other
cases
for all Thumb-1 only targets.
(__only_thumb1__): Define for all Thumb-1 only targets.
(THUMB_LDIV0): Test for __only_thumb1__ rather than
__ARM_ARCH_6M__.
(EQUIV): Likewise.
(ARM_FUNC_ALIAS): Likewise.
(umodsi3): Add check to __only_thumb1__ to guard the idiv
version.
(modsi3): Likewise.
(HAVE_ARM_CLZ): Remove block defining it.
(clzsi2): Test for __only_thumb1__ rather than __ARM_ARCH_6M__
and
check __ARM_FEATURE_CLZ instead of HAVE_ARM_CLZ.
(clzdi2): Likewise.
(ctzsi2): Likewise.
(L_interwork_call_via_rX): Test for __ARM_ARCH_ISA_ARM rather
than
__ARM_ARCH_6M__ in guard for checking whether it is defined.
(final includes): Test for __only_thumb1__ rather than
__ARM_ARCH_6M__ and add comment to indicate the connection
between
this condition and the one in gcc/config/arm/elf.h.
* config/arm/libunwind.S: Test for __ARM_ARCH_ISA_THUMB and
__ARM_ARCH_ISA_ARM rather than __ARM_ARCH_6M__.
* config/arm/t-softfp: Likewise.
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.h b/gcc/config/arm/arm.h
index
5b1a03080d0a00fc1ef6934f6bce552e65230640..7eb11d920944c693700d80bb3fb3f9fe
66611c19 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.h
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.h
@@ -2188,8 +2188,10 @@ extern int making_const_table;
#define TARGET_ARM_ARCH \
(arm_base_arch) \
-#define TARGET_ARM_V6M (!arm_arch_notm && !arm_arch_thumb2)
-#define TARGET_ARM_V7M (!arm_arch_notm && arm_arch_thumb2)
+#define TARGET_ARM_V6M (TARGET_ARM_ARCH == BASE_ARCH_6M && !arm_arch_notm
\ + && !arm_arch_thumb2)
+#define TARGET_ARM_V7M (TARGET_ARM_ARCH == BASE_ARCH_7M && !arm_arch_notm
\ + && arm_arch_thumb2)
I think now that you're checking TARGET_ARM_ARCH you don't need
the "!arm_arch_notm && !arm_arch_thumb2" && "!arm_arch_notm &&
arm_arch_thumb2".
% git --no-pager grep TARGET_ARM_V.M config/arm
config/arm/arm.h:#define TARGET_ARM_V6M (!arm_arch_notm && !arm_arch_thumb2)
config/arm/arm.h:#define TARGET_ARM_V7M (!arm_arch_notm && arm_arch_thumb2)
What about just removing those? I kept them because I wasn't sure of their
purpose but I think we should just remove them.
That's fine with me.
Then you'd also want to remove the TARGET_ARM_V8M definition from your second
patch
that I flagged up in that review.
Kyrill
Best regards,
Thomas
