[PATCH][wwwdocs][ARM] ACLE Coprocessor Intrinsics

Hi, This patch adds a change entry for the ACLE Coprocessor Intrinsics in the ARM section. Is this OK? Cheers, Andre ? coprocessor_changes.patch ? htdocs/gcc-7/.changes.html.swp cvs diff: Diffing . cvs diff: Diffing bin cvs diff: Diffing cgi-bin cvs diff: Diffing htdocs cvs diff: Diffing

Re: [PATCH 6/6][ARM] Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor MCRR and MRRC intrinsics

On 05/01/17 11:11, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On 09/11/16 10:12, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This patch implements support for the ARM ACLE Coprocessor MCR and MRC >> intrinsics. See below a table mapping the intrinsics to

Re: [PATCH 5/6][ARM] Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor MCR and MRC intrinsics

On 05/01/17 11:08, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 09/11/16 10:12, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This patch implements support for the ARM ACLE Coprocessor MCR and MRC >> intrinsics. See below a table mapping the intrinsics to th

Re: [PATCH 4/6][ARM] Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor LDC and STC intrinsics

On 05/01/17 11:02, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On 09/11/16 10:12, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This patch implements support for the ARM ACLE Coprocessor LDC and STC >> intrinsics. See below a table mapping the intrinsics to

Re: [PATCH 3/6][ARM] Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor CDP intrinsics

On 05/01/17 10:44, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On 09/11/16 10:11, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This patch implements support for the ARM ACLE Coprocessor CDP >> intrinsics. See below a table mapping the intrinsics to

Re: [PATCH 2/6][ARM] Move CRC builtins to refactored framework

On 05/01/17 10:27, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 05/12/16 15:05, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 01/12/16 17:25, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> On 09/11/16 10:11, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> This patch refactors th

Re: [PATCH] PR78255: Make postreload aware of NO_FUNCTION_CSE

On 09/12/16 16:31, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 12/09/2016 05:16 PM, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > >> Regardless, 'reload_cse_simplify' would never perform the opposite >> transformation. It checks whether it can replace anything within the >> first argument INSN, with the

Re: [PATCH][ARM] ARMv8-M Security Extensions: Warn for unused result for some intrinsics

On 04/01/17 11:30, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On 04/01/17 11:21, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> Hello, >> >> This patch adds the attribute "warn_unused_result" to the following >> intrinsics: >> __cmse_TT{,A,AT,T}_

[PATCH][ARM] ARMv8-M Security Extensions: Warn for unused result for some intrinsics

_unused_result attribute to function declaration. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2017-01-04 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> * gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-3.c: Add warning tests for the warn_unused_result warning. diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/ar

Re: [PATCH, ARM] PR71607: New approach to arm_disable_literal_pool

On 29/11/16 09:45, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 17/11/16 10:00, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Andre Vieira (lists) >> <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> This patch tackles the issue repor

[Ping 2][PATCH][ARM] Updating testcase unsigned-extend-2.c

On 12/12/16 14:20, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 21/06/16 15:16, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> Hello, >> >> After some changes to GCC this test no longer tests the desired code >> generation behavior. The generated assembly is better than it used to >> be, b

[ARM][committed] Fix for PR78255-2.c testism for targets that do not optimize for tailcall

, i.e. 'bl?' rather than 'b'. The test is really to make sure a direct call is not turned into an indirect call. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-12-20 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> * gcc.target/arm/pr78255-2.c: Fix to work for targets that do not optimize for tailcall. diff --g

[arm-embedded][committed] Fix backport of PR71607: no longer use TARGET_USE_BLOCKS_FOR_CONSTANT_P

will be changing the patch for trunk to reflect these findings, even though this did not show up during trunk testing. Tested with various arm-none-eabi configurations: -mcpu=cortex-m0/m3/m7 and -march=armv8-m.baseline. Cheers, Andre gcc/ChangeLog.arm: 2016-12-14 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdias

[arm-embedded][committed] Testcase fixes for wrong backport

Hi, It seems I backported the wrong versions of the testcases to embedded-6-branch. Fixed them with this patch. Cheers, Andre gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.arm: 2016-12-14 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> * gcc.target/arm/cmse/mainline/hard/cmse-13.c: Fix tes

[Ping][PATCH][ARM] Updating testcase unsigned-extend-2.c

On 21/06/16 15:16, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Hello, > > After some changes to GCC this test no longer tests the desired code > generation behavior. The generated assembly is better than it used to > be, but it has become too smart. I add an extra parameter to make sure >

[arm-embedded][committed] PR78255: Make postreload aware of NO_FUNCTION_CSE

Hi I backported this patch to the embedded-6-branch in revision r243496. Cheers, Andre gcc/ChangeLog.arm: 2016-12-09 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> Backport from mainline 2016-12-09 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> PR rtl-

Re: [PATCH] PR78255: Make postreload aware of NO_FUNCTION_CSE

On 09/12/16 16:02, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Bernd Schmidt <bschm...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 12/09/2016 04:34 PM, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> >>> Regardless, the other testcases I add in this patch show a sub-optimal >>

Re: [PATCH] PR78255: Make postreload aware of NO_FUNCTION_CSE

On 09/12/16 15:02, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 12/09/2016 03:03 PM, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> This patch fixes the issue reported in PR78255 by making postreload >> aware it should not be performing CSE on functions if NO_FUNCTION_CSE is >> defined to true. >> >&

[PATCH] PR78255: Make postreload aware of NO_FUNCTION_CSE

on arm-none-eabi. Is this OK for trunk? Cheers, Andre gcc/ChangeLog 2016-12-09 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> PR rtl-optimization/78255 * gcc/postreload.c (reload_cse_simplify): Do not CSE a function if NO_FUNCTION_CSE is true. gcc/testsuite/Cha

[arm-embedded][committed] PR71607: New approach to arm_disable_literal_pool

On 29/11/16 09:45, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 17/11/16 10:00, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Andre Vieira (lists) >> <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> This patch tackles the issue repor

[arm-embedded][committed][PATCH 6/6] ARM ACLE Coprocessor MCRR and MRRC intrinsics

On 05/12/16 11:52, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 09/11/16 10:12, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This patch implements support for the ARM ACLE Coprocessor MCR and MRC >> intrinsics. See below a table mapping the intrinsics to their

[arm-embedded][committed][PATCH 5/6] ARM ACLE Coprocessor MCR and MRC intrinsics

On 09/11/16 10:12, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Hi, > > This patch implements support for the ARM ACLE Coprocessor MCR and MRC > intrinsics. See below a table mapping the intrinsics to their respective &g

[arm-embedded][committed][PATCH 4/6] ARM ACLE Coprocessor LDC and STC intrinsics

On 09/11/16 10:12, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Hi, > > This patch implements support for the ARM ACLE Coprocessor LDC and STC > intrinsics. See below a table mapping the intrinsics to their respective &g

[arm-embedded][committed][PATCH 3/6] ARM ACLE Coprocessor CDP intrinsics

On 09/11/16 10:11, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Hi, > > This patch implements support for the ARM ACLE Coprocessor CDP > intrinsics. See below a table mapping the intrinsics to their respective &g

Re: [PATCH 2/6][ARM] Move CRC builtins to refactored framework

On 05/12/16 15:05, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 01/12/16 17:25, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 09/11/16 10:11, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> This patch refactors the implementation of the ARM ACLE CRC builtins to >>> use the bu

[arm-embedded][committed][PATCH 1/6] Refactor NEON builtin framework to work for other builtins

On 01/12/16 17:25, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 17/11/16 10:42, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >> Hi Andre, >> >> On 09/11/16 10:11, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Refactor NEON builtin framework such that it can be used to implement

[arm-embedded][committed][PATCH 10/17] Refactor support code for NEON builtins.

gt; moved from arm_expand_neon_builtin with some white-space fixes. >> (arm_expand_neon_builtin): Move code into the standalone function >> arm_expand_neon_builtin_1. >> > Hi, Backported this to embedded-6-branch in revision r. gcc/ChangeLog.arm:

Re: [PATCH 2/6][ARM] Move CRC builtins to refactored framework

On 01/12/16 17:25, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 09/11/16 10:11, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This patch refactors the implementation of the ARM ACLE CRC builtins to >> use the builtin framework. >> >> Is this OK for trunk? >> >>

Re: [PATCH 6/6][ARM] Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor MCRR and MRRC intrinsics

On 09/11/16 10:12, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Hi, > > This patch implements support for the ARM ACLE Coprocessor MCR and MRC > intrinsics. See below a table mapping the intrinsics to their respective &g

[arm-embedded][committed][PATCH 7/7] Added support for ARMV8-M Security Extension cmse_nonsecure_caller intrinsic

On 30/11/16 12:06, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Hi, > > I changed the testcase with this patch since the old testcase was > casting a function pointer to another function pointer and using that > pointer to call the function. This is undefined behavior. The new test > reflec

[arm-embedded][committed][PATCH 6/7] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_call: use __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call

On 02/12/16 13:41, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On 02/12/16 13:36, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 23/11/16 11:53, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> On 11/11/16 16:19, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>>> And CC'ing Ramana and Richard this time... >>>

Re: [PATCHv3 5/7, GCC[arm-embedded][committed][PATCH 5/7] Handling ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_call attribute, ARM, V8M] Handling ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_call attri

On 30/11/16 17:22, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 30/11/16 12:05, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I got a bug report against the old version of this patch and fixed it >> here. This had to do with GCC optimizations sharing types with and >> without

[arm-embedded][committed][PATCH 4/7] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_entry: clear registers

On 30/11/16 17:22, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 30/11/16 15:32, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 23/11/16 11:52, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> After some extra testing I realized there was an issue with the way we >>

[arm-embedded][committed][PATCH 3/7] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_entry: __acle_se label and bxns return

On 27/10/16 10:55, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 26/10/16 11:03, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >> Hi Andre, >> >> On 25/10/16 17:28, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> On 25/07/16 14:23, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>>> This patch extends s

[arm-embedded][committed][PATCH 2/7] Handling ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_entry attribute

On 27/10/16 11:19, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 27/10/16 10:54, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 26/10/16 17:28, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>> On 26/10/16 17:28, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>>> On 26/10/16 10:33, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>>>> +static t

[arm-embedded][committed][PATCH 1/7] Add support for ARMv8-M's Secure Extensions flag and intrinsics

On 27/10/16 11:01, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 27/10/16 10:53, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 26/10/16 14:00, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>> On 26/10/16 10:12, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>>> Hi Andre, thanks for resending them. >>>> >>>> On 25/1

[committed][ARM]Fix arm-netbsdelf bootstrap

On 02/12/16 21:16, Jeff Law wrote: > > Trying to build arm-netbsdelf: > > g++ -fno-PIE -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE > -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall > -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute >

Re: [PATCHv2 6/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_call: use __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call

On 23/11/16 11:53, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 11/11/16 16:19, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >> And CC'ing Ramana and Richard this time... >> > > Hi, > > After some extra testing I found that the sibcall optimization was not > disabled for calls to function pointer

Re: [PATCH 2/6][ARM] Move CRC builtins to refactored framework

On 09/11/16 10:11, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Hi, > > This patch refactors the implementation of the ARM ACLE CRC builtins to > use the builtin framework. > > Is this OK for trunk? > > Regards, > Andre > > gcc/ChangeLog > 2016-11-09 Andre Vie

Re: [PATCH 1/6][ARM] Refactor NEON builtin framework to work for other builtins

On 17/11/16 10:42, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On 09/11/16 10:11, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Refactor NEON builtin framework such that it can be used to implement >> other builtins. >> >> Is this OK for trunk? >> >

Re: [PATCHv2 4/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_entry: clear registers

On 23/11/16 11:52, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Hi, > > After some extra testing I realized there was an issue with the way we > were clearing registers when returning from a cmse_nonsecure_entry > function for ARMv8-M.Baseline. This patch fixes that and changes the >

Re: [PATCH 7/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] Added support for ARMV8-M Security Extension cmse_nonsecure_caller intrinsic

Hi, I changed the testcase with this patch since the old testcase was casting a function pointer to another function pointer and using that pointer to call the function. This is undefined behavior. The new test reflects a more sane use of the intrinsics. Cheers, Andre diff --git

[PATCHv3 5/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] Handling ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_call attribute

of TARGET_COMP_TYPE_ATTRIBUTES, deny compatibility between function types with the attribute and without. I added a test case to test the issue solved with these changes. *** gcc/ChangeLog *** 2016-11-xx Andre Vieira<andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> Thomas Preud'homme <thoma

Re: [Ping][PATCH 0/6][ARM] Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor Intrinsics

On 29/11/16 10:37, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 29/11/16 10:35, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 21/11/16 08:42, Christophe Lyon wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> On 17 November 2016 at 11:45, Kyrill Tkachov >>> <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.co

[Ping][PATCH 0/6][ARM] Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor Intrinsics

On 21/11/16 08:42, Christophe Lyon wrote: > Hi, > > > On 17 November 2016 at 11:45, Kyrill Tkachov > <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> wrote: >> >> On 17/11/16 10:31, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> >>> Hi Kyrill, >>> >>> On 17/1

Re: [PATCH, ARM] PR71607: New approach to arm_disable_literal_pool

On 17/11/16 10:00, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Andre Vieira (lists) > <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> This patch tackles the issue reported in PR71607. This patch takes a >> different approach for dis

Re: [PATCHv2 6/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_call: use __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call

nction wrapper to be skipped. This would result in an illegal branch into secure memory and would HardFault. Added a test. Is this OK? Cheers, Andre *** gcc/ChangeLog *** 2016-11-xx Andre Vieira<andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> Thomas Preud'homme <thomas.pre

Re: [PATCHv2 4/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_entry: clear registers

Hi, After some extra testing I realized there was an issue with the way we were clearing registers when returning from a cmse_nonsecure_entry function for ARMv8-M.Baseline. This patch fixes that and changes the testcase to catch the issue. The problem was I was always using LR to clear the

[wwwdocs][PATCH][ARM] Add -mpure-code to changes.html

Hi, I added the description of the new ARM -mpure-code option to changes.html. Is this OK? Cheers, Andre Index: htdocs/gcc-7/changes.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-7/changes.html,v retrieving revision 1.24 diff -u

Re: [PATCH 0/6][ARM] Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor Intrinsics

Hi Kyrill, On 17/11/16 10:11, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On 09/11/16 10:00, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> >> Tested the series by bootstrapping arm-none-linux-gnuabihf and found no >> regressions, also did a normal build for arm-none-eabi and ran the >

Re: [PATCHv2 6/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_call: use __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call

> Why are you writing 1.0 to clear the register? I think you want > CONST0_RTX (DFmode) > and CONST0_RTX (SFmode). > > Also, in this function when you iterate from regno = 0 up to some > number, please use > regno = R0_REGNUM (minor nit). > > Thanks, > Kyrill > > Hi Kyrill, So you got me

Re: [PATCH][ARM] PR78255: wrong code generation for indirect sibling calls

On 10/11/16 14:54, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Hi, > > As reported in PR78255 there is currently an issue with indirect sibling > calls in ARM when the address of the sibling call is loaded into 'r3' > and that same register is chosen to align the stack. See the repor

[PATCH][ARM] PR78255: wrong code generation for indirect sibling calls

to be loaded into a register, but I do not know what a sane way would be to ensure this. Regards, Andre gcc/ChangeLog 2016-11-10 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> * config/arm/arm.md (sibcall_internal): Add 'use' to pattern. (sibcall_value_internal): Li

Re: [PATCHv2 6/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_call: use __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call

On 27/10/16 11:01, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 25/10/16 17:30, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 24/08/16 12:01, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> On 25/07/16 14:26, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>>> This patch extends support for the ARMv8-M Security Extensions >

Re: [PATCH 7/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] Added support for ARMV8-M Security Extension cmse_nonsecure_caller intrinsic

On 09/11/16 10:26, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > @@ -1832,6 +1834,17 @@ arm_init_builtins (void) > = add_builtin_function ("__builtin_arm_stfscr", ftype_set_fpscr, > ARM_BUILTIN_SET_FPSCR, BUILT_IN_MD, NULL, NULL_TREE); > } > + > + if (arm_arch_cmse) > +{ > + tree

[PATCH 6/6][ARM] Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor MCRR and MRRC intrinsics

? Regards, Andre gcc/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> * config/arm/arm.md (): New. (): New. * config/arm/arm.c (arm_arch5te): New. (arm_option_override): Set arm_arch5te. (arm_coproc_builtin_available): Add support for mcrr, mcrr2, mrrc and

[PATCH 5/6][ARM] Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor MCR and MRC intrinsics

'unsigned int'. We do some boundary checks for coproc:[0-15], opc1[0-7] CR*:[0-31],opc2:[0-7]. If either of these requirements are not met a diagnostic is issued. Is this OK for trunk? Regards, Andre gcc/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> * config/arm/

[PATCH 4/6][ARM] Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor LDC and STC intrinsics

boundary checks for coproc:[0-15], CR*:[0-31]. If either of these requirements are not met a diagnostic is issued. Is this ok for trunk? Regards, Andre gcc/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> * config/arm/arm.md (*ldcstc): New. (): New. * config/arm

[PATCH 3/6][ARM] Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor CDP intrinsics

. Is this OK for trunk? Regards, Andre gcc/ChangeLog: 2016-11-09 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> * config/arm/arm.md (): New. * config/arm/arm.c (neon_const_bounds): Rename this ... (arm_const_bounds): ... this. (arm_coproc_builtin_available): New. * config/a

[PATCH 1/6][ARM] Refactor NEON builtin framework to work for other builtins

Hi, Refactor NEON builtin framework such that it can be used to implement other builtins. Is this OK for trunk? Regards, Andre gcc/ChangeLog 2016-11-09 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> * config/arm/arm-builtins.c (neon_builtin_datum): Rename to .. (arm_builtin

[PATCH 2/6][ARM] Move CRC builtins to refactored framework

Hi, This patch refactors the implementation of the ARM ACLE CRC builtins to use the builtin framework. Is this OK for trunk? Regards, Andre gcc/ChangeLog 2016-11-09 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> * config/arm/arm-builtins.c (arm_unsigned_binop_qualifiers

[PATCH 0/6][ARM] Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor Intrinsics

for arm-none-eabi and ran the acle.exp tests for a Cortex-M3. (6) Andre Vieira Refactor NEON builtin framework to work for other builtins Move CRC builtins to refactored framework Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor CDP intrinsics Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor LDC and STC intrinsics

[arm-embedded][committed] Add support for -mpure-code option

Hi, Backported the support for the ARM -mpure-code option, including the follow-up fixes to the embedded-6-branch. Tested for arm-none-eabi. Committed in revision r241970. Cheers, Andre gcc/ChangeLog.arm: 2016-11-08 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> Backport from ma

Re: [Ping][PATCH, ARM] PR71607: New approach to arm_disable_literal_pool

On 21/10/16 09:55, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 06/10/16 14:57, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> Hello, >> >> This patch tackles the issue reported in PR71607. This patch takes a >> different approach for disabling the creation of literal pools. Instead >> of

[arm-embedded][committed] Treat a --with-headers option without argument same as default

Hi, I backported this https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02196.html to the embedded-6-branch. Tested on arm-none-eabi. Committed in revision r241960. Cheers, Andre gcc/ChangeLog.arm: 2016-11-08 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> Backport from ma

Re: [PATCHv2 4/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_entry: clear registers

On 27/10/16 11:44, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 27/10/16 11:00, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 26/10/16 17:30, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>> On 26/10/16 17:26, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>>> On 26/10/16 13:51, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>>>> Hi An

Re: [PATCHv2 6/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_call: use __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call

On 25/10/16 17:30, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 24/08/16 12:01, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 25/07/16 14:26, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> This patch extends support for the ARMv8-M Security Extensions >>> 'cmse_nonsecure_call' to

Re: [PATCHv2 5/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] Handling ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_call attribute

On 25/10/16 17:29, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 24/08/16 12:01, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 25/07/16 14:25, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> This patch adds support for the ARMv8-M Security Extensions >>> 'cmse_nonsecure_call' attribute. This attribute may on

Re: [PATCHv2 4/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_entry: clear registers

On 26/10/16 17:30, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 26/10/16 17:26, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 26/10/16 13:51, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>> Hi Andre, >>> >>> On 25/10/16 17:29, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>>> On 24/08/16 12:01, Andre Vieira (

Re: [PATCH 3/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_entry: __acle_se label and bxns return

On 26/10/16 11:03, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On 25/10/16 17:28, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 25/07/16 14:23, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> This patch extends support for the ARMv8-M Security Extensions >>> 'cmse_nonsecure_entry' attribute in

Re: [PATCHv2 2/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] Handling ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_entry attribute

On 26/10/16 17:28, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 26/10/16 17:28, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 26/10/16 10:33, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>> +static tree >>> +arm_handle_cmse_nonsecure_entry (tree *node, tree name, >>> + tree /* args

Re: [PATCHv2 1/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] Add support for ARMv8-M's Secure Extensions flag and intrinsics

On 26/10/16 14:00, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 26/10/16 10:12, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >> Hi Andre, thanks for resending them. >> >> On 25/10/16 17:26, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> On 24/08/16 12:00, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>>>

Re: [PATCHv2 2/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] Handling ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_entry attribute

On 26/10/16 10:33, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > +static tree > +arm_handle_cmse_nonsecure_entry (tree *node, tree name, > + tree /* args */, > + int /* flags */, > + bool *no_add_attrs) > +{ > + tree fndecl; > + > + if (!use_cmse) > +{ > +

Re: [PATCHv2 4/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_entry: clear registers

On 26/10/16 13:51, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On 25/10/16 17:29, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 24/08/16 12:01, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> On 25/07/16 14:23, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>>> This patch extends support

Re: [PATCH 7/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] Added support for ARMV8-M Security Extension cmse_nonsecure_caller intrinsic

On 24/08/16 12:01, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 25/07/16 14:28, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> This patch adds support ARMv8-M's Security Extension's >> cmse_nonsecure_caller intrinsic. This intrinsic is used to check whether >> an entry function was called from a non

Re: [PATCHv2 6/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_call: use __gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call

On 24/08/16 12:01, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 25/07/16 14:26, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> This patch extends support for the ARMv8-M Security Extensions >> 'cmse_nonsecure_call' to use a new library function >> '__gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call'. This library fu

Re: [PATCHv2 5/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] Handling ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_call attribute

On 24/08/16 12:01, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 25/07/16 14:25, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> This patch adds support for the ARMv8-M Security Extensions >> 'cmse_nonsecure_call' attribute. This attribute may only be used for >> function types and when used in combina

Re: [PATCHv2 4/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_entry: clear registers

On 24/08/16 12:01, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 25/07/16 14:23, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> This patch extends support for the ARMv8-M Security Extensions >> 'cmse_nonsecure_entry' attribute to safeguard against leak of >> information through unbanked registers. >

Re: [PATCH 3/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_entry: __acle_se label and bxns return

On 25/07/16 14:23, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > This patch extends support for the ARMv8-M Security Extensions > 'cmse_nonsecure_entry' attribute in two ways: > > 1) Generate two labels for the function, the regular function name and > one with the function's name appended

Re: [PATCHv2 2/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] Handling ARMv8-M Security Extension's cmse_nonsecure_entry attribute

On 24/08/16 12:00, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 25/07/16 14:21, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> This patch adds support for the ARMv8-M Security Extensions >> 'cmse_nonsecure_entry' attribute. In this patch we implement the >> attribute handling and diagnosis around the a

Re: [PATCHv2 1/7, GCC, ARM, V8M] Add support for ARMv8-M's Secure Extensions flag and intrinsics

On 24/08/16 12:00, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 25/07/16 14:19, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> This patch adds the support of the '-mcmse' option to enable ARMv8-M's >> Security Extensions and supports the following intrinsics: >> cmse_TT >> cmse_TT_fptr &

Re: [C++ PATCH] RFC: implement P0386R2 - C++17 inline variables

On 21/10/16 16:14, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 03:57:34PM +0100, Yao Qi wrote: >> Hi Jakub, >> >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Andre Vieira (lists) >> <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> wrote: >>> <2><8f5>: Abbrev Number:

[committed][ARM] Restore saved globals in pure-code.exp

Hello, I noticed I forgot to restore the changed global values in pure-code.exp. Failing to restore them could influence subsequent testing. Committed this as obvious in revision r241466. Cheers, Andre gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-10-24 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.

[Ping][PATCH, ARM] PR71607: New approach to arm_disable_literal_pool

On 06/10/16 14:57, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Hello, > > This patch tackles the issue reported in PR71607. This patch takes a > different approach for disabling the creation of literal pools. Instead > of disabling the patterns that would normally transform the rtl into > ac

Re: [C++ PATCH] RFC: implement P0386R2 - C++17 inline variables

On 13/10/16 20:34, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> And, as mentioned in the DWARF mailing list, I think we should emit >> DW_AT_inline on the inline vars (both explicit and implicit - static >> constexpr data members in C++17

Re: [GCC-6][RFA 1/2]: Don't ignore target_header_dir when deciding inhibit_libc

On 09/09/16 15:32, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 27/05/16 15:51, Ulrich Weigand wrote: >> Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> On 07/04/16 10:30, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>>> On 17/03/16 16:33, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>>>> On 23/10/15 12:31, Be

[PATCH][ARM] Fix testism with pure-code tests for non Cortex-M targets

'. Is this OK for trunk? Ran these tests for a ARMv7-A. Cheers, Andre gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-10-14 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> * gcc.target/arm/pure-code/pure-code.exp: Adjust targets to test for. >From a5f9063dd8e3c6405c40a7e99d0bf322dc6d58a9 Mon Sep 17

[PATCH, ARM] PR71607: New approach to arm_disable_literal_pool

2016-10-06 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdiasvie...@arm.com> PR target/71607 * config/arm/arm.md (use_literal_pool): Remove. (64-bit immediate split): No longer take cost into consideration if 'arm_disable_literal_pool' is enabled. (32-bit const split): Remove SImode from

Re: [PATCHv2][ARM] -mpure-code option for ARM

On 04/10/16 14:24, mickael guene wrote: > Hi Andre, > > I can't see new testsuite files in trunk : > gcc.target/arm/pure-code/ffunction-sections.c > gcc.target/arm/pure-code/no-literal-pool.c > gcc.target/arm/pure-code/pure-code.exp > > It seems you forgot to include them in your patch. > Can

Re: [PATCH] Define 3-argument overloads of std::hypot for C++17 (P0030R1)

Hi Jonathan, On 27/09/16 16:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > The test might not be very good, but tests some small integer values > and some other values where accuracy is lost for one or other of the > alternative implementations mentioned above. If this FAILs for some > 32-bit targets we might

[PATCH, arm-embedded] -mpure-code option for ARM

On 22/09/16 16:04, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 22/09/16 14:52, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> On 11/07/16 17:56, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> On 07/07/16 13:30, mickael guene wrote: >>>> Hi Andre, >>>> >>>> Another feedback on

Re: [PATCHv2][ARM] -mpure-code option for ARM

On 23/09/16 09:33, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 23/09/16 02:21, Sandra Loosemore wrote: >> On 09/22/2016 07:52 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >>> On 11/07/16 17:56, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>>> + >>>> diff --git a/

Re: [PATCHv3][ARM] -mpure-code option for ARM

On 23/09/16 11:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:37:21PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> diff --git a/gcc/hooks.c b/gcc/hooks.c >> index >> 99ec4014adb6fcbb073bf538dd00fe8695ee6cb2..1e925645c3173f8d97e104b9b2f480fca2ede438 >> 100644 >> --- a/gcc/hooks.c >> +++ b/gcc/hooks.c >> @@

Re: [PATCHv2][ARM] -mpure-code option for ARM

On 23/09/16 02:21, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 09/22/2016 07:52 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> On 11/07/16 17:56, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> + >>> diff --git a/gcc/target.def b/gcc/target.def >>> index >>

Re: [PATCHv3][ARM] -mpure-code option for ARM

On 22/09/16 16:28, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 22/09/16 16:04, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> >> I reworked the patch according to the comments above. >> >> Is this OK? >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> 2016-09-22 Andre Vieira <andre.simoesdias

Re: [PATCHv3][ARM] -mpure-code option for ARM

On 22/09/16 14:52, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 11/07/16 17:56, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 07/07/16 13:30, mickael guene wrote: >>> Hi Andre, >>> >>> Another feedback on your purecode patch. >>> You have to disable casesi patte

Re: [PATCHv2, PING 4][ARM] -mpure-code option for ARM

On 30/08/16 09:01, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 11/08/16 15:13, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 25/07/16 11:52, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> On 11/07/16 17:56, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>>> On 07/07/16 13:30, mickael guene wrote: >>>>> Hi

Re: [Patch] Implement std::experimental::variant

On 26/08/16 18:56, Tim Shen wrote: >> >> Adding '#include ' to >> 'include/c++/7.0.0/variant' "fixes" that. Not sure its the right >> approach though. > > Why not? > I'm not saying its the wrong approach, I'm just saying thats the first thing I tried and it "seemed" to solve it but I didnt

[GCC-6][RFA 1/2]: Don't ignore target_header_dir when deciding inhibit_libc

On 27/05/16 15:51, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 07/04/16 10:30, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> On 17/03/16 16:33, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>>> On 23/10/15 12:31, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/2015 11:58 AM, U

Re: [PATCHv2, PING 3][ARM] -mpure-code option for ARM

On 11/08/16 15:13, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 25/07/16 11:52, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >> On 11/07/16 17:56, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: >>> On 07/07/16 13:30, mickael guene wrote: >>>> Hi Andre, >>>> >>>> Another feedback on your pu

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >