Re: [ARM] Fix -mpure-code for v6m

2020-02-25 Thread Christophe Lyon
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 14:44, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > Hi Christophe, > > On 2/24/20 2:16 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > Ping? > > > > I'd also like to backport this and the main patch (svn r279463, > > r10-5505-ge24f6408df1e4c5e8c09785d7b488c492dfb68b3) > > to the gcc-9 branch. > > > > I found

Re: [ARM] Fix -mpure-code for v6m

2020-02-25 Thread Kyrill Tkachov
Hi Christophe, On 2/24/20 2:16 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote: Ping? I'd also like to backport this and the main patch (svn r279463, r10-5505-ge24f6408df1e4c5e8c09785d7b488c492dfb68b3) to the gcc-9 branch. I found the problem addressed by this patch while validating the backport to gcc-9: although

Re: [ARM] Fix -mpure-code for v6m

2020-02-24 Thread Christophe Lyon
Ping? I'd also like to backport this and the main patch (svn r279463, r10-5505-ge24f6408df1e4c5e8c09785d7b488c492dfb68b3) to the gcc-9 branch. I found the problem addressed by this patch while validating the backport to gcc-9: although the patch applies cleanly except for testcases dg

Re: [ARM] Fix -mpure-code for v6m

2020-02-13 Thread Christophe Lyon
or this > is significant, so it likely will throw off the calculations and > somebody will get unlucky. On the other hand, I don't think we should > pessimize code for the non-pure-code variants by inflating the size for > this unconditionally. > > It seems there are two ways to fix this. > >

Re: [ARM] Fix -mpure-code for v6m

2020-02-10 Thread Richard Earnshaw (lists)
On 10/02/2020 09:27, Christophe Lyon wrote: On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 17:55, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 07/02/2020 16:43, Christophe Lyon wrote: On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 14:49, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 07/02/2020 13:19, Christophe Lyon wrote: When running the testsuite with

Re: [ARM] Fix -mpure-code for v6m

2020-02-10 Thread Christophe Lyon
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 17:55, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > > On 07/02/2020 16:43, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 14:49, Richard Earnshaw (lists) > > wrote: > >> > >> On 07/02/2020 13:19, Christophe Lyon wrote: > >>> When running the testsuite with -fdisable-rtl-fwprop2 and

Re: [ARM] Fix -mpure-code for v6m

2020-02-07 Thread Richard Earnshaw (lists)
On 07/02/2020 16:43, Christophe Lyon wrote: On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 14:49, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 07/02/2020 13:19, Christophe Lyon wrote: When running the testsuite with -fdisable-rtl-fwprop2 and -mpure-code for cortex-m0, I noticed that some testcases were failing because we

Re: [ARM] Fix -mpure-code for v6m

2020-02-07 Thread Christophe Lyon
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 14:49, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > > On 07/02/2020 13:19, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > When running the testsuite with -fdisable-rtl-fwprop2 and -mpure-code > > for cortex-m0, I noticed that some testcases were failing because we > > still generate "ldr rX, .LCY", which

Re: [ARM] Fix -mpure-code for v6m

2020-02-07 Thread Richard Earnshaw (lists)
On 07/02/2020 13:19, Christophe Lyon wrote: When running the testsuite with -fdisable-rtl-fwprop2 and -mpure-code for cortex-m0, I noticed that some testcases were failing because we still generate "ldr rX, .LCY", which is what we want to avoid with -mpure-code. This is latent since a recent

[ARM] Fix -mpure-code for v6m

2020-02-07 Thread Christophe Lyon
When running the testsuite with -fdisable-rtl-fwprop2 and -mpure-code for cortex-m0, I noticed that some testcases were failing because we still generate "ldr rX, .LCY", which is what we want to avoid with -mpure-code. This is latent since a recent improvement in fwprop (PR88833). In this patch I