On 1/14/20 1:50 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 14:49, Kyrill Tkachov
<kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> wrote:
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?
Sure. I should have thought of it when I submitted the GCC patch...
How about the attached? I'm not sure about the right upper/lower case
and <code> markers....
Thanks,
Christophe
commit ba2a354c9ed6c75ec00bf21dd6938b89a113a96e
Author: Christophe Lyon<christophe.l...@linaro.org>
Date: Tue Jan 14 13:48:19 2020 +0000
[arm] Document -mpure-code support for v6m in gcc-10
diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html
index caa9df7..26cdf66 100644
--- a/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html
+++ b/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html
@@ -417,7 +417,11 @@ a work-in-progress.</p>
data-processing intrinsics</a> to include 32-bit SIMD, saturating arithmetic,
16-bit multiplication and other related intrinsics aimed at DSP algorithm
optimization.
- </li>
+ </li>
+ <li>Support for <code>-mpure-code</code> in Thumb-1 (v6m) has been
+ added: this M-profile feature is no longer restricted to targets
+ with <code>MOTV</code>. For instance, Cortex-M0 is now
+ supported</li>
Typo in MOVT.
Let's make the last sentence. "For example, <code>-mcpu=cortex-m0</code> now
supports this option."
Ok with those changes.
Thanks,
Kyrill
</ul>
<h3 id="avr">AVR</h3>
