This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][ARM] Optimized 64-bit multiplication for THUMB-1
- From: Doug Kwan (éæå) <dougkwan at google dot com>
- To: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:25:02 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][ARM] Optimized 64-bit multiplication for THUMB-1
- References: <AANLkTi=A-ZuBARrxXJaJC4hz=J-oL4_5zYjbJ1w2d_nR@mail.gmail.com> <201010221920.37094.paul@codesourcery.com> <AANLkTi=BQk4TdhxW6vUcGzk_YkjMZE8iEZM02cZ7GJSt@mail.gmail.com> <201010260036.04736.paul@codesourcery.com> <AANLkTim0DD79EqTbGEWYVQCZaM+j4Vwhp66oWkW_nbJw@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinQJdBy-nTWy7coKJOUk3kXQ+otqYyEfTeZKLOS@mail.gmail.com>
Ping
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Doug Kwan (關振德) <dougkwan@google.com> wrote:
> Ping? Is the patch okay with an explict .arm directive added or some
> other modification is required?
>
> -Doug
>
> 在 2010年10月26日下午2:33，Doug Kwan (關振德) <dougkwan@google.com> 寫道：
>> Hi,
>>
>> I looked at the definition of the ARM_FUNC_START macro, the cases in
>> which the macro does not force use of ARM mode are:
>>
>> - __thumb2__ is defined, the macro is defined but no .arm used.
>> - __ARM_ARCH_6M__ is defined, the macro is not defined.
>>
>> In both of the cases above, the code protected by the test is not
>> assembled, so there is no problem observed. I can add an .arm to be
>> explicit like the attached patch. Would that be better?
>>
>> -Doug
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 在 2010年10月25日下午4:36，Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com> 寫道：
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much for your review and comments. I have fixed the
>>>> push/pop and use of 2-argument code in 32-bit code. I am not quite
>>>> sure what the problem in the __thumb2__ test is. I built arm-eabi-gcc
>>>> with arches armv4, armv5te, armv7-a and no-arch and all build was
>>>> successful. I did change the test so that forcing ARM mode is only
>>>> done if:
>>>
>>> No. You're missing the point. ARM_FUNC_START does not force the use of ARM
>>> mode. See comments near the definition of that macro.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>
>