[U-Boot] Query on CONFIG_SYS_THUMB_BUILD

[Simon Glass]

Hi Albert,

On 16 November 2014 07:50, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot at aribaud.net> wrote:
> Hello Simon,
>
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 15:10:47 -0700, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> wrote:
>> Hi Albert,
>>
>> On 15 November 2014 05:30, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot at aribaud.net> wrote:
>> > Hello Simon,
>> >
>> > On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 18:56:07 -0700, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > I believe you've built crt0.S for ARM, not Thumb.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but I suspect that is a function of the build system. I checked
>> >> the rest of U-Boot and most of it (including SPL) is Thumb 2. I
>> >> suppose we could use Thumb 2 for crt0.S if all the instructions are
>> >> supported.
>> >
>> > Ok. Just in case, I'll run a check on whether crt0.S can be assembled
>> > for Thumb and still wrk as expected. :)
>> >
>> > Do you have a list of source files which still build for ARM under
>> > CONFIG_SYS_THUMB_BUILD? I' would prefer all of the code to be thumb for
>> > consistence, except probably... exception :) entry points -- and even
>> > these should be able to run in full Thumb 2.
>>
>> No I don't have a list, but it might be all assembler files. I don't
>> see why cro0.S would be special.
>
> Ok, so after some research, .S files voluntarily not assembled in Thumb
> mode when -mthumb is defined in gcc because of this:
>
> Answer: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27237
>
> (summary: -mthumb for gcc means 'use thumb2', while it means 'use
> dumb, 16-bit, thumb1' for GNU as, so this option is voluntarily not
> passed on to GNU as. You have to use .thumb in the .S file instead.)
>
> Second: getting a successful, though quick'n'dirty, build with vectors.S
> assembled in Thumb-2 mode needed surprisingly little change in
> vectors.S. I tried this with mx53loco, and it only required:
>
>         - adding '.syntax unified';
>
>         - adding a .thumb directive -- *after* the vectors per se, which
>           must still be assembled in ARM mode because current hardware
>           always executes exceptions vectors in ARM mode (1);
>
>         - using '.balign' instead of '.balignl' which causes the
>           assembler to complain that it cannot fit an integer
>           number of '0xdeadbeef' in the filling space;
>
>         - making macro get_bad_stack use lr instead of r13, which
>           Thumb does not allow in 'msr spsr,' instructions;
>
>         - adding '.thumb_func' to all routines so that the linker makes
>           all references to them odd and therefore, cause the CPU to
>           enforce Thumb mode when branching to them.
>
>         (1) although you *could* produce an ARM-based SoC that runs in
>         Thumb mode by default. In this case, you'd have to make the
>         vectors themselves Thumb too.
>
> Third: getting a successful *run* of the resulting file will require
> some work which I'm not going to do without a good incentive :) -- and
> so does producing a clean vectors.S, i.e. one which will assemble
> correctly for both ARM and Thumb.

That doesn't sound too trciky, but I agree it's not a huge deal. I
suppose the main benefit is consistency, since the code size
improvement would be small.

Regards,
Simon