| Message ID | 52957548.8060308@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
ping Thanks, Kugan On 27/11/13 15:30, Kugan wrote: > On 27/11/13 02:07, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> On 23/11/13 01:54, Kugan wrote: > > [snip] > >>> +2013-11-22 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> >>> + >>> + * libgcc/config/arm/pbapi-lib.h (HAVE_NO_HW_DIVIDE): Define for >> >> It's bpabi-lib.h > > Thanks for the review. > >>> + __ARM_ARCH_7_A__. >>> + >>> >>> >> >> No, this will: >> 1) Do the wrong thing for Cortex-a7, A12 and A15 (which all have HW >> divide, and currently define __ARM_ARCH_7_A__). >> 2) Do the wrong thing for v7-M and v7-R devices, which have Thumb HW >> division instructions. >> 3) Do the wrong thing for all pre-v7 devices, which don't have HW division. >> >> I think the correct solution is to test !defined(__ARM_ARCH_EXT_IDIV__) > > I understand it now and updated the code as attached. > > +2013-11-27 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> > + > + * config/arm/bpapi-lib.h (TARGET_HAS_NO_HW_DIVIDE): Define for > + architectures that does not have hardware divide instruction. > + i.e. architectures that does not define __ARM_ARCH_EXT_IDIV__. > + > > > Is this OK for trunk now? > Thanks, > Kugan >
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Kugan <kugan.vivekanandarajah@linaro.org> wrote: > ping This patch needs to be approved by an ARM maintainer. Ian > On 27/11/13 15:30, Kugan wrote: >> On 27/11/13 02:07, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >>> On 23/11/13 01:54, Kugan wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>>> +2013-11-22 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> >>>> + >>>> + * libgcc/config/arm/pbapi-lib.h (HAVE_NO_HW_DIVIDE): Define for >>> >>> It's bpabi-lib.h >> >> Thanks for the review. >> >>>> + __ARM_ARCH_7_A__. >>>> + >>>> >>>> >>> >>> No, this will: >>> 1) Do the wrong thing for Cortex-a7, A12 and A15 (which all have HW >>> divide, and currently define __ARM_ARCH_7_A__). >>> 2) Do the wrong thing for v7-M and v7-R devices, which have Thumb HW >>> division instructions. >>> 3) Do the wrong thing for all pre-v7 devices, which don't have HW division. >>> >>> I think the correct solution is to test !defined(__ARM_ARCH_EXT_IDIV__) >> >> I understand it now and updated the code as attached. >> >> +2013-11-27 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> >> + >> + * config/arm/bpapi-lib.h (TARGET_HAS_NO_HW_DIVIDE): Define for >> + architectures that does not have hardware divide instruction. >> + i.e. architectures that does not define __ARM_ARCH_EXT_IDIV__. >> + >> >> >> Is this OK for trunk now? >> Thanks, >> Kugan >> >
On 12/02/13 23:39, Kugan wrote: >> >> +2013-11-27 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> >> + >> + * config/arm/bpapi-lib.h (TARGET_HAS_NO_HW_DIVIDE): Define for >> + architectures that does not have hardware divide instruction. >> + i.e. architectures that does not define __ARM_ARCH_EXT_IDIV__. >> + >> >> >> Is this OK for trunk now? Yes, this part is fine too. AFAICT, it just implements what Richard E. suggested ;-) jeff
Committed on Kugan's behalf as rev 205666. Christophe. On 3 December 2013 20:47, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote: > On 12/02/13 23:39, Kugan wrote: >>> >>> >>> +2013-11-27 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kuganv@linaro.org> >>> + >>> + * config/arm/bpapi-lib.h (TARGET_HAS_NO_HW_DIVIDE): Define for >>> + architectures that does not have hardware divide instruction. >>> + i.e. architectures that does not define __ARM_ARCH_EXT_IDIV__. >>> + >>> >>> >>> Is this OK for trunk now? > > Yes, this part is fine too. AFAICT, it just implements what Richard E. > suggested ;-) > > jeff
diff --git a/libgcc/config/arm/bpabi-lib.h b/libgcc/config/arm/bpabi-lib.h index e0e46a6..7c6b489 100644 --- a/libgcc/config/arm/bpabi-lib.h +++ b/libgcc/config/arm/bpabi-lib.h @@ -75,3 +75,7 @@ helper functions - not everything in libgcc - in the interests of maintaining backward compatibility. */ #define LIBGCC2_FIXEDBIT_GNU_PREFIX + +#if (!defined(__ARM_ARCH_EXT_IDIV__)) +# define TARGET_HAS_NO_HW_DIVIDE +#endif