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 > Thanks, > > Kyrill > > > > Thanks, > > > > Kyrill > > > > > >> Christophe > >> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Kyrill > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Christophe > >>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>> Christophe > >>>>> > >>>>>> R.
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> </ul> <h3 id="avr">AVR</h3>