On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 16:31, Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> wrote: > > > 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, > Thanks, committed as r279463.
> Kyrill > > > > Christophe > > > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Kyrill > >> > >> > >> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Christophe > >>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Christophe > >>>> > >>>>> R.
