Hi Tamar,
On 1 December 2017 at 09:57, Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> wrote: > Ping, > > This patch has also been bootstrapped and no issues. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tamar Christina >> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 17:29 >> To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org >> Cc: nd <n...@arm.com>; Ramana Radhakrishnan >> <ramana.radhakrish...@arm.com>; Richard Earnshaw >> <richard.earns...@arm.com>; ni...@redhat.com; Kyrylo Tkachov >> <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> >> Subject: RE: [PATCH][GCC][ARM] Generate .arch and .arch_extensions for >> each function if required. [Patch (3/3)] >> >> Ping >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches- >> > ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Tamar Christina >> > Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 16:52 >> > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org >> > Cc: nd <n...@arm.com>; Ramana Radhakrishnan >> > <ramana.radhakrish...@arm.com>; Richard Earnshaw >> > <richard.earns...@arm.com>; ni...@redhat.com; Kyrylo Tkachov >> > <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> >> > Subject: [PATCH][GCC][ARM] Generate .arch and .arch_extensions for >> > each function if required. [Patch (3/3)] >> > >> > Hi All, >> > >> > This patch adds the needed machinery to generate the appropriate .arch >> > and .arch_extension directives per function. >> > >> > Borrowing from AArch64 this is only done when it's required (i.e. when >> > the directives to be set differ from the currently set one). >> > >> > As part if this the .fpu directive has also been cleaned up to follow >> > the same logic. >> > >> > Regtested on arm-none-eabi and no regressions. >> > >> > Ok for trunk? >> > >> > gcc/ >> > 2017-11-06 Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> >> > >> > PR target/82641 >> > * config/arm/arm.c (INCLUDE_STRING): Define. >> > (arm_last_printed_arch_string, arm_last_printed_fpu_string): New. >> > (arm_declare_function_name): Conservatively emit .arch, >> > .arch_extensions >> > and .fpu. >> > >> > gcc/testsuite/ >> > 2017-11-06 Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> >> > >> > PR target/82641 >> > * gcc.target/arm/pragma_arch_attribute_2.c: New. >> > * gcc.target/arm/pragma_arch_attribute_2.c: New. >> > * gcc.target/arm/pragma_arch_attribute_3.c: New. >> > * gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute.c: New. >> > * gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute_2.c: New. >> > >> > -- I'm afraid you'll have to update the testcases: they fail on non-hf targets (arm-none-linux-gnueabi, arm-none-eabi), because: In file included from /gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute.c:7: /aci-gcc-fsf/builds/gcc-fsf-gccsrc/obj-arm-none-linux-gnueabi/gcc3/gcc/include/arm_neon.h:31:2: error: #error "NEON intrinsics not available with the soft-float ABI. Please use -mfloat-abi=softfp or -mfloat-abi=hard" /gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute.c:11:53: error: unknown type name 'poly64x1_t' /gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pragma_fpu_attribute.c:11:71: error: unknown type name 'poly64x1_t' Looking at other attributes tests, maybe you need to add arm_neon_ok? Thanks, Christophe
