Hi Christophe,

On 12/17/19 3:31 PM, Kyrill Tkachov 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.


Can you also send a patch to the changes.html page for GCC 10 making users aware that this restriction is now lifted?

Thanks,

Kyrill


Thanks,

Kyrill


Christophe

Thanks,

Kyrill



Thanks,

Christophe

Thanks,

Christophe

R.

Reply via email to