[PATCH 2/2] [ARM] Add support for -mpure-code in thumb-1 (v6m)

[Christophe Lyon]

On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 16:31, Kyrill Tkachov
<kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/17/19 2:33 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 11:34, Kyrill Tkachov
> > <kyrylo.tkachov@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.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:13, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> >>>> <Richard.Earnshaw@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.
>
> Thanks,
>
Thanks, committed as r279463.

> Kyrill
>
>
> > Christophe
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Kyrill
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Christophe
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Christophe
> >>>>
> >>>>> R.