ping? https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg01667.html
Kyrill approved the previous version modulo a typo fix, but Richard wanted a better name for a variable. Is that version OK? Thanks, Christophe On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 16:29, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > > ping? > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 10:00, Christophe Lyon > <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 15:46, Christophe Lyon > > <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:13, Richard Earnshaw (lists) > > > <richard.earns...@arm.com> 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? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Christophe > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Christophe > > > > > > > > > > > R.
