On Jun 18, 2025, Richard Earnshaw <richard.earns...@arm.com> wrote: > On 18/06/2025 10:31, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 9, 2025, "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <richard.earns...@arm.com> wrote: >> >>> On 08/06/2025 14:15, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>>> >>>> VxWorks kernel mode doesn't support thumb code, so the test fails. >>>> Require thumb2 support. >> >>> You already have -march=armv7, so that implies any thumb code will be >>> thumb2. >> The parm of arm_thumb2_ok I'm interested in is the one about the >> compiler's not issuing an error message when thumb mode is enabled, even >> if implicitly by -march. arm-vx7r2 in kernel mode errors out with >> -march=armv7, so there's no way to run the test there.
> This is a compile-only test. In what way does vxworks kernel mode > have anything to do with this? The compiler, in kernel mode (that's implicit), rejects thumb mode: $ arm-wrs-vxworks7r2-gcc -march=armv7 -S whatever.c arm-wrs-vxworks7r2-gcc: error: -mthumb and kernel mode are mutually incompatible (whatever.c doesn't even exist) IIRC this rejection is currently implemented through (internal?) specs. I'm using arm_thumb2_ok to tell whether the tools are able to target thumb2, and that's the purpose of arm_thumb2_ok. I'm *not* testing for runtime or hardware support (that would conventionally have suffix _hw), because, as you point out, this is a compile test. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://blog.lx.oliva.nom.br/ Free Software Activist FSFLA co-founder GNU Toolchain Engineer More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity. Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive!
