Re: [PATCH 22/22] feature-arm-thumb: Take ARM_INSTRUCTION_SET into account to decide thumb mode

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 08:23 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Friday, August 05, 2011 03:34:43 PM Phil Blundell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 12:39 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > ARM_THUMB_M_OPT = "${@['-mno-thumb',
> > > '-mthumb'][bb.data.getVar('ARM_INSTRUCTION_SET', d, 1) == 'thumb']}"
> > > TUNE_CCARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "thumb",
> > > "${ARM_THUMB_M_OPT}", "${ARM_THUMB_M_OPT}", d)}"
> > > Master has the above. This means it can set -mthumb for machines that 
> don't have the thumb feature which seems wrong to me. I suspect it should be:
> > Agreed, it does seem as though any bb.utils.contains() where the "true"
> > and "false" arms are identical must be wrong.
> > 
> > > TUNE_CCARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "thumb",
> > > "${ARM_THUMB_M_OPT}", "-mno-thumb", d)}"
> > > 
> > > or if gcc can't cope with that,
> > > 
> > > TUNE_CCARGS += "${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "thumb",
> > > "${ARM_THUMB_M_OPT}", "", d)}"
> > I think either of those should be fine.
> > 
> 
> I prefer the latter since it will have one option less in gcc commandline
> saving a minute bit of time spent in parsing cmdline.

Since nobody sent me a patch I've just merged a patch to do the latter.

Cheers,

Richard