Hi Christophe,
On 11/18/19 9:00 AM, Christophe Lyon 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?
The name looks ok to me. Richard had a concern about Armv8-M Baseline,
but I do see it being supported as you pointed out.
So I believe all the concerns are addressed.
Thus the code is ok. However, please also updated the documentation for
-mpure-code in invoke.texi (it currently states that a MOVT instruction
is needed).
Thanks,
Kyrill
Thanks,
Christophe
> Thanks,
>
> Christophe
>
> >
> > R.
