Maybe the original patch is better? Or maybe it should reconfigure the FPU
instead of erroring out? But reconfigure it to what?
Andrew
________________________________________
From: James Greenhalgh [james.greenha...@arm.com]
Sent: 23 September 2014 09:27
To: Stubbs, Andrew
Cc: Richard Earnshaw; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [arm][patch] fix arm_neon_ok check on !arm_arch7
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:56:03AM +0100, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> On 15/09/14 10:46, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > Hmm, I wonder if arm_override_options should reject neon + (arch < 7).
>
> Is this more to your taste?
Is this really such a good idea? It causes carnage throughout the
testsuite if you have configured with support for Neon and the testcase
is written with dg-options for a pre-armv7-a -march value.
For example in:
testsuite/gcc.target/arm/di-longlong64-sync-withhelpers.c
Which forces -march=armv5.
Perhaps you just have to fix the effective-target-ok tests - but then
we lose swathes of test coverage.
Thanks,
James
>
> Andrew
>
> P.S. arm_override_options was renamed in 2010.
> 2014-09-15 Andrew Stubbs <a...@codesourcery.com>
>
> * gcc/config/arm/arm.c (arm_option_override): Reject -mfpu=neon
> when architecture is older than ARMv7.
>
> Index: gcc/config/arm/arm.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/config/arm/arm.c (revision 215228)
> +++ gcc/config/arm/arm.c (working copy)
> @@ -2845,6 +2845,9 @@
>
> arm_fpu_desc = &all_fpus[arm_fpu_index];
>
> + if (TARGET_NEON && !arm_arch7)
> + error ("target CPU does not support NEON");
> +
> switch (arm_fpu_desc->model)
> {
> case ARM_FP_MODEL_VFP:
