On 04/30/2015 09:43 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Christian Bruel <christian.br...@st.com> > wrote: >> Hello Ramana >> >>>> >>> >>> Can you respin this now that we are in stage1 again ? >>> >>> Ramana >>> >> >> Attached the rebased, rechecked set of patches. Original with comments >> posted in >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02455.html >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02458.html >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02460.html >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02461.html >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02463.html >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02467.html >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02468.html >> >> many thanks, >> >> Christian > > > A general note, please reply to each of the patches with a rebased > patch as a separate email. Further more all your patches appear to > have dos line endings so they don't seem to apply cleanly. Please > don't have spurious headers in your patch submission - it then makes > it hard to , please create it in a way that it is easily applied by > someone trying it out. It looks like p4 needs a respin as I got a > reject trying to apply the documentation patch to my tree while trying > to apply it. >
OK, thanks for the suggestions and sorry for the p4 reject. The sources are moving fast and I have hard times catching up with re-bases. > I tried the following decoration on foo in gcc.target/arm/attr_arm.c > > > int __attribute__((target("arm, fpu=vfpv4"))) > foo(int a) > { > return a ? 1 : 5; > } > > > And the compiler accepts it just fine. Indeed, it's a mistake for now. attributes other the arm/thumb ones shall be rejected (eventually with a "not yet implemented" warning for the fpu, error for the others.) until we extend it. > > Given that with LTO we are now using target attributes to decide > inlining - I'm not convinced that the inline asm case goes away. In > fact it only makes things worse so I'm almost convinced to forbid > inlining from "arm" to "thumb" or vice-versa, which is a reversal of > my earlier position. I hadn't twigged that LTO would reuse this > infrastructure and it's probably simpler to prevent inlining in those > cases. I can resurrect the inline check chunk. FYI, with a few small examples arm/thumb attribute is correctly handled by LTO > > Thoughts ? > > So in essence I'm still playing with this and would like to iterate > towards a quick solution. > thanks, that would be good if we could land the arm/thumb attribute and start the fpu extensions separately. (I'm currently playing with fpu=neon but it will take time to have something solid). Christian > Ramana >