On 12/17/19 2:33 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 11:34, Kyrill Tkachov
<kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
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.
OK, thanks!
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).
I didn't think about this :(
It currently says: "This option is only available when generating
non-pic code for M-profile targets with the MOVT instruction."
I suggest to remove the "with the MOVT instruction" part. Is that OK
if I commit my patch and this doc change?
Yes, I think that is simplest correct change to make.
Thanks,
Kyrill
Christophe
Thanks,
Kyrill
Thanks,
Christophe
Thanks,
Christophe
R.
