On 16/06/17 08:48, Prakhar Bahuguna wrote:
> On 15/06/2017 17:23:43, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 14/06/17 10:35, Prakhar Bahuguna wrote:
>>> The ARM ACLE defines the __ARM_FEATURE_COPROC macro which indicates which
>>> coprocessor intrinsics are available for the target. If
>>> __ARM_FEATURE_COPROC is
>>> undefined, the target does not support coprocessor intrinsics. The feature
>>> levels are defined as follows:
>>>
>>> +---------+-----------+--------------------------------------------------+
>>> | **Bit** | **Value** | **Intrinsics Available** |
>>> +---------+-----------+--------------------------------------------------+
>>> | 0 | 0x1 | __arm_cdp __arm_ldc, __arm_ldcl, __arm_stc, |
>>> | | | __arm_stcl, __arm_mcr and __arm_mrc |
>>> +---------+-----------+--------------------------------------------------+
>>> | 1 | 0x2 | __arm_cdp2, __arm_ldc2, __arm_stc2, __arm_ldc2l, |
>>> | | | __arm_stc2l, __arm_mcr2 and __arm_mrc2 |
>>> +---------+-----------+--------------------------------------------------+
>>> | 2 | 0x4 | __arm_mcrr and __arm_mrrc |
>>> +---------+-----------+--------------------------------------------------+
>>> | 3 | 0x8 | __arm_mcrr2 and __arm_mrrc2 |
>>> +---------+-----------+--------------------------------------------------+
>>>
>>> This patch implements full support for this feature macro as defined in
>>> section
>>> 5.9 of the ACLE
>>> (https://developer.arm.com/products/software-development-tools/compilers/arm-compiler-5/docs/101028/latest/5-feature-test-macros).
>>>
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> 2017-06-14 Prakhar Bahuguna <prakhar.bahug...@arm.com>
>>>
>>> * config/arm/arm-c.c (arm_cpu_builtins): New block to define
>>> __ARM_FEATURE_COPROC according to support.
>>>
>>> 2017-06-14 Prakhar Bahuguna <prakhar.bahug...@arm.com>
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/cdp.c: Add feature macro bitmap
>>> test.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/cdp2.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/ldc.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/ldc2.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/ldc2l.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/ldcl.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/mcr.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/mcr2.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/mcrr.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/mcrr2.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/mrc.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/mrc2.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/mrrc.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/mrrc2.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/stc.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/stc2.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/stc2l.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/stcl.c: Likewise.
>>>
>>> Testing done: ACLE regression tests updated with tests for feature macro
>>> bits.
>>> All regression tests pass.
>>>
>>> Okay for trunk?
>>>
>>>
>>> 0001-Implement-__ARM_FEATURE_COPROC-coprocessor-intrinsic.patch
>>>
>>>
>>> From 79d71aec9d2bdee936b240ae49368ff5f8d8fc48 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Prakhar Bahuguna <prakhar.bahug...@arm.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 13:43:40 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH] Implement __ARM_FEATURE_COPROC coprocessor intrinsic
>>> feature
>>> macro
>>>
>>> ---
>>> gcc/config/arm/arm-c.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/cdp.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/cdp2.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/ldc.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/ldc2.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/ldc2l.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/ldcl.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/mcr.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/mcr2.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/mcrr.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/mcrr2.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/mrc.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/mrc2.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/mrrc.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/mrrc2.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/stc.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/stc2.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/stc2l.c | 3 +++
>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/acle/stcl.c | 3 +++
>>> 19 files changed, 73 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm-c.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm-c.c
>>> index 3abe7d1f1f5..3daf4e5e1f3 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm-c.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm-c.c
>>> @@ -200,6 +200,25 @@ arm_cpu_builtins (struct cpp_reader* pfile)
>>> def_or_undef_macro (pfile, "__ARM_FEATURE_IDIV", TARGET_IDIV);
>>>
>>> def_or_undef_macro (pfile, "__ARM_ASM_SYNTAX_UNIFIED__",
>>> inline_asm_unified);
>>> +
>>> + if ((!TARGET_THUMB || TARGET_THUMB2) && arm_arch4 &&
>>
>> (!TARGET_THUMB || TARGET_THUMB2) looks to me to be equivalent to
>> TARGET_32BIT. That should be used in preference.
> TARGET_32BIT is defined to be (TARGET_ARM || arm_arch_thumb2). This is not
> true
> for ARMv8-M Baseline which supports neither ARM mode nor the full Thumb2 mode,
> so this alternative is used.
That's irrelevant since that case is caught by the arm_arch_notm test.
#define TARGET_32BIT (TARGET_ARM || arm_arch_thumb2)
#define TARGET_THUMB2 (TARGET_THUMB && arm_arch_thumb2)
#define TARGET_ARM (! TARGET_THUMB)
So (!TARGET_THUMB || TARGET_THUMB2)
= (!TARGET_THUMB || (TARGET_THUMB && arm_arch_thumb2))
= ((!TARGET_THUMB || TARGET_THUMB) && (!TARGET_THUMB || arm_arch_thumb2))
= (1 && (!TARGET_THUMB || arm_arch_thumb2))
= (!TARGET_THUMB || arm_arch_thumb2)
= (TARGET_ARM || arm_arch_thumb2)
= TARGET_32BIT
Please use the latter.
> The same conditional is used by arm_acle.h.
A patch to fix that is pre-approved.
>
>> Why the test for arm_arch4? Co-processor instructions in ARM state go
>> back to the dawn of time.
> In arm_acle.h, the coprocessor intrinsics are only enabled for ARMv4 and
> above,
> hence the macro is only available when the intrinsics are available.
>
>> GNU coding style requires operators on multi-line statements to be at
>> the start of the continuation lines, not at the end of lines.
>>
>>> + !(arm_arch8 && arm_arch_notm))
>>> + {
>>> + int coproc_level = 0x1;
>>> +
>>> + if (arm_arch5)
>>> + coproc_level |= 0x2;
>>> + if (arm_arch5e)
>>> + coproc_level |= 0x4;
>>> + if (arm_arch6)
>>> + coproc_level |= 0x8;
>>> +
>>> + builtin_define_with_int_value ("__ARM_FEATURE_COPROC", coproc_level);
>>> + }
>>> + else
>>> + {
>>> + cpp_undef (pfile, "__ARM_FEATURE_COPROC");
>>> + }
>>
>> Redundant braces around single statement.
>>
>> R.
>
> Thanks, will fix these.
>
