[PATCH] Use ".arch_extension" ARM directive to specify the additional CPU features
sgundapa at codeaurora.org
Wed Feb 4 13:53:06 PST 2015
Comment at: lib/Target/ARM/ARMAsmPrinter.cpp:682
@@ +681,3 @@
+ // Enable hwdiv through ".arch_extension idiv"
+ if (Subtarget->isKrait() && (Subtarget->hasDivide()
+ || Subtarget->hasDivideInARMMode()))
> echristo wrote:
> > rengolin wrote:
> > > shouldn't you check here based on the instruction set you're using? Something like:
> > >
> > > if (Subtarget->isKrait() && (
> > > Subtarget->hasDivide() ||
> > > (!Subtarget->isThumb() && Subtarget->hasDivideInARMMode())
> > > )
> > >
> > > To make sure we don't turn it on when it's thumb and it only has div on ARM.
> > Using subtargets here is not going to be allowed as soon as I can separate the code out so I'd prefer you come up with another way of figuring out the ISA here.
> > Honestly a loop over all functions in the module and collecting cpu information is probably how we're going to need to go and should be simple. I'm not sure how ARM attribute merging works between functions so if someone could detail that it would be appreciated.
> ARM has no function specific attribute in EABI. The only thing we do is in the assembler just for the sake of accepting otherwise invalid instructions (bump up support) for the rare case where you're pretty sure no one will call that function without support for that instruction. This has mainly two users: ifunc and unwinders.
> The point here is to work around a GAS deficiency in representing "krait" as an A9+DIV in a *global* context. So, your function specific attribute will either not exist, or be replicated to all functions, whatever is easier for you.
> Regarding getting the ISA, I was wrong, and we should use the build attributes anyway.
Guys, I am bit confused here what needs to be done.
Renato, "hasDivide()" checks for thumb2 and "hasDivideInARMMode()" checks for arm mode, the two modes where hwdiv is allowed.
Or, I am not understanding what you meant ?
ARMAsmPrinter.cpp has loads of references to Subtarget. Wouldn't it be a good idea to clean them in a single go ?
More information about the llvm-commits