RFR: Add support for ARMv6 to ARM JIT

[Andrew Haley]

On 12/02/15 05:09, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> You're more than welcome to commit this. Now would be a good time
>>> to do so while things are still relatively quiet, before our
>>> next release cycle in April.
>>>
>>> I've opened a bug to track this:
>>>
>>> http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2228
>>>
>>> If you include the text 'PR2228' in the commit message when pushing
>>> to http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/icedtea7-forest/hotspot, the commit
>>> will be recorded on the bug.
>>>
>> Thanks. I will do so next week. I am at a conference this week.
>>
>> Was there a consensus on the which of the following routes we take.
>>
>> 1) Add arm32JIT.cpp and keep thumb2.cpp
>>
>> 2) Add arm32JIT.cpp and delete thumb2.cpp
>>
>> (or maybe just call it armJIT.cpp since it supports both 16/32 bit)
>>
>> 3) Replace the existing thumb2.cpp with the arm32JIT.cpp
>>
>> (in this case the name is a misnomer).
>>
>> I have no strong feelings on any of the above 3.
> 
> I'd say 2, unless someone has an objection.

Absolutely.  As a general rule, any code which is obsolete will just
rot if it's untested, so should be deleted.

> Aren't 2 and 3 the same? If you're replacing thumb2.cpp, surely that
> means it's been deleted? :/
> 
> FWIW, arm32 might be a little clearer to some than arm, given AArch64
> has been referred to as arm64.

I think we shouldn't do this.  ARM32 comes from the Linux kernel
because maintainers refused to use the correct name.  It has no
official meaning.

Andrew.