| Message ID | 506F02BB.4050109@gjlay.de |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
2012/10/5 Georg-Johann Lay <avr@gjlay.de>: > As already discussed, this patch removes the -mshort-calls command option from > avr-gcc. > > Ok to apply? > > If the change is on order, changes to wwwdocs will follow, i.e. deprecate the > option in 4.7 and tell it is removed in the 4.8 caveats. > > Johann > > > * doc/invoke.texi (AVR Options): Remove -mshort-calls. > * config/avr/avr.opt (-mshort-calls): Remove option. > * config/avr/avr.h (AVR_HAVE_JMP_CALL): Don't depend on > TARGET_SHORT_CALLS. > Ok. Approved. Denis.
As Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > As already discussed, this patch removes the -mshort-calls command > option from avr-gcc. > Ok to apply? I'm more than happy with removing it.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Georg-Johann Lay [] > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 9:55 AM > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Denis Chertykov; Weddington, Eric; Joerg Wunsch > Subject: [Patch,avr]: Remove -mshort-calls option > > As already discussed, this patch removes the -mshort-calls command option > from > avr-gcc. > > Ok to apply? Ok to apply, but... > > If the change is on order, changes to wwwdocs will follow, i.e. deprecate > the > option in 4.7 and tell it is removed in the 4.8 caveats. > ... but where do we notify the user that the switch is deprecated?
On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 18:01 +0000, Weddington, Eric wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Georg-Johann Lay [] > > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 9:55 AM > > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > > Cc: Denis Chertykov; Weddington, Eric; Joerg Wunsch > > Subject: [Patch,avr]: Remove -mshort-calls option > > > > As already discussed, this patch removes the -mshort-calls command option > > from > > avr-gcc. > > > > Ok to apply? > > Ok to apply, but... > > > > > If the change is on order, changes to wwwdocs will follow, i.e. deprecate > > the > > option in 4.7 and tell it is removed in the 4.8 caveats. > > > > ... but where do we notify the user that the switch is deprecated? > Maybe would be better to first make the option a no-op that prints a warning in GCC, remove it from all documentations and mention the deprecation in the wwwdocs changes. Then, in the next GCC release, remove it completely. Cheers, Oleg
Oleg Endo wrote: > Weddington, Eric wrote: >>Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >>> >>> As already discussed, this patch removes the -mshort-calls command option >>> from avr-gcc. >>> >>> Ok to apply? >> Ok to apply, but... >> >>> If the change is on order, changes to wwwdocs will follow, i.e. deprecate >>> the option in 4.7 and tell it is removed in the 4.8 caveats. >>> >> ... but where do we notify the user that the switch is deprecated? Exactly there: In the wwwdocs, namely the caveats section of the release notes. The release notes are the blackboard for anyone who wants to get informed about what changed in the new release series. > Maybe would be better to first make the option a no-op that prints a > warning in GCC, remove it from all documentations and mention the > deprecation in the wwwdocs changes. Then, in the next GCC release, > remove it completely. IMHO it's not reasonable to put effort into a declining feature. Why shouldn't we follow common GCC practice here? Johann
On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 21:37 +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > Oleg Endo wrote: > > Maybe would be better to first make the option a no-op that prints a > > warning in GCC, remove it from all documentations and mention the > > deprecation in the wwwdocs changes. Then, in the next GCC release, > > remove it completely. > > IMHO it's not reasonable to put effort into a declining feature. Why > shouldn't we follow common GCC practice here? "Effort" in this case is adding a "Warn(...)" to the existing option and then remove it some time later. I think it's more user friendly to first warn and then do. But that's just my opinion, feel free to ignore :) Cheers, Oleg
As Oleg Endo wrote: > I think it's more user friendly to > first warn and then do. The problem is that this option would better not have existed straight from the beginning. When using it, the compiler is at the risk of generating code that fails to link later, because the relative calls used could not reach the entire address space of the respective processor.
Joerg Wunsch wrote: > As Oleg Endo wrote: > >> I think it's more user friendly to >> first warn and then do. > > The problem is that this option would better not have existed straight > from the beginning. When using it, the compiler is at the risk of > generating code that fails to link later, because the relative calls > used could not reach the entire address space of the respective > processor. Also notice that this is only about the -mshort-calls option of the avr port, not about similar named options that exist for some other ports. Johann
Index: doc/invoke.texi =================================================================== --- doc/invoke.texi (revision 192131) +++ doc/invoke.texi (working copy) @@ -505,7 +505,7 @@ Objective-C and Objective-C++ Dialects}. @emph{AVR Options} @gccoptlist{-mmcu=@var{mcu} -maccumulate-args -mbranch-cost=@var{cost} @gol --mcall-prologues -mint8 -mno-interrupts -mrelax -mshort-calls @gol +-mcall-prologues -mint8 -mno-interrupts -mrelax @gol -mstrict-X -mtiny-stack} @emph{Blackfin Options} @@ -11291,13 +11291,6 @@ differ from instructions in the assemble Relaxing must be turned on if linker stubs are needed, see the section on @code{EIND} and linker stubs below. -@item -mshort-calls -@opindex mshort-calls -Use @code{RCALL}/@code{RJMP} instructions even on devices with -16@tie{}KiB or more of program memory, i.e.@: on devices that -have the @code{CALL} and @code{JMP} instructions. -See also the @code{-mrelax} command line option. - @item -msp8 @opindex msp8 Treat the stack pointer register as an 8-bit register, @@ -11560,7 +11553,7 @@ The device has a hardware multiplier. @item __AVR_HAVE_JMP_CALL__ The device has the @code{JMP} and @code{CALL} instructions. This is the case for devices with at least 16@tie{}KiB of program -memory and if @code{-mshort-calls} is not set. +memory. @item __AVR_HAVE_EIJMP_EICALL__ @item __AVR_3_BYTE_PC__ Index: config/avr/avr.opt =================================================================== --- config/avr/avr.opt (revision 192131) +++ config/avr/avr.opt (working copy) @@ -50,10 +50,6 @@ Target Report Undocumented Mask(ORDER_1) morder2 Target Report Undocumented Mask(ORDER_2) -mshort-calls -Target Report Mask(SHORT_CALLS) -Use rjmp/rcall (limited range) on >8K devices - mtiny-stack Target Report Mask(TINY_STACK) Change only the low 8 bits of the stack pointer Index: config/avr/avr.h =================================================================== --- config/avr/avr.h (revision 192131) +++ config/avr/avr.h (working copy) @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ enum #define TARGET_CPU_CPP_BUILTINS() avr_cpu_cpp_builtins (pfile) -#define AVR_HAVE_JMP_CALL (avr_current_arch->have_jmp_call && !TARGET_SHORT_CALLS) +#define AVR_HAVE_JMP_CALL (avr_current_arch->have_jmp_call) #define AVR_HAVE_MUL (avr_current_arch->have_mul) #define AVR_HAVE_MOVW (avr_current_arch->have_movw_lpmx) #define AVR_HAVE_LPMX (avr_current_arch->have_movw_lpmx)