Bugfix - Issue #207 - TI Arm Clang Compiler Support

[smmasongt]

Addresses Issue #180 and Issue #207 which cause build failures with TI Arm Clang Compiler.

1. It was suggested to move to the generic "cmsis_clang.h" header, which I agree would be the best long term option. Verified TI Arm Clang Compiler supports ACLE 2.00 in documentation [1] which should help reduce the number of specialized handlers for the compiler. Kept a separate section in "cmsis_compiler.h" for TI Arm Clang Compiler in case it is needed in the future, and added additional checks so preprocessor logic is not order dependent.

2. Removed now unused header "cmsis_tiarmclang_m.h".

3. Removed legacy TI Arm Compiler (armcl) section as header "cmsis_ccs.h" is not present in CMSIS_6.

Tested updates alongside pull request #45 on a subset of CMSIS-DSP functions which was the primary motivation for enabling TI compiler support.

Test Environment:
TI AM2434, Cortex-R5F, VFPv3-D16
TI CCS 20.4.1.4
TI Arm Clang Compiler v5.0

References:
[1] TI Arm Clang Compiler

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Fixes TI Arm Clang (tiarmclang) build failures by routing TI’s Clang-based toolchain through the generic cmsis_clang.h path and removing legacy/unused TI-specific headers.

Changes:

• Update compiler-detection logic to treat TI Arm Clang as __clang__ && __ti__ and include cmsis_clang.h with a minimum version check.
• Remove legacy TI Arm Compiler (armcl) section from cmsis_compiler.h.
• Remove unused TI Arm Clang M-profile header cmsis_tiarmclang_m.h.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File	Description
CMSIS/Core/Include/m-profile/cmsis_tiarmclang_m.h	Deleted unused TI Arm Clang M-profile-specific header to rely on generic Clang header handling.
CMSIS/Core/Include/cmsis_compiler.h	Adjusted TI Arm Clang detection and switched to cmsis_clang.h; removed legacy TI armcl block.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[JonatanAntoni]

LGTM, did you consider enhancing Core Tests and CoreValidation to run with TI Compiler? Doing so, and assuming we don't need a special license to run the compiler in GitHub Actions, this could help to seal compiler support.

PS: CoreValidation is using CMSIS-Toolbox thus we'd need a contribution to enable TI Compiler with Csolution, too.

[github-actions]

Test Results

   264 files   -   108     264 suites   - 108   0s ⏱️ - 8m 46s
    56 tests +    7      54 ✅ + 10      2 💤  -     3  0 ❌ ±0 
14 292 runs   - 3 936  12 124 ✅ +160  2 168 💤  - 4 096  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 358e1da. ± Comparison against base commit 6f669f2.

This pull request removes 49 and adds 56 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.

CMSIS-Core.src ‑ apsr.c
CMSIS-Core.src ‑ basepri.c
CMSIS-Core.src ‑ bkpt.c
CMSIS-Core.src ‑ clrex.c
CMSIS-Core.src ‑ clz.c
CMSIS-Core.src ‑ control.c
CMSIS-Core.src ‑ cp15.c
CMSIS-Core.src ‑ cpsr.c
CMSIS-Core.src ‑ dmb.c
CMSIS-Core.src ‑ dsb.c
…

TC_CML1Cache_CleanDCacheByAddrWhileDisabled
TC_CML1Cache_EnDisableDCache
TC_CML1Cache_EnDisableICache
TC_CoreFunc_APSR
TC_CoreFunc_BASEPRI
TC_CoreFunc_Control
TC_CoreFunc_EnDisIRQ
TC_CoreFunc_EncDecIRQPrio
TC_CoreFunc_FAULTMASK
TC_CoreFunc_FPSCR
…

This pull request removes 5 skipped tests and adds 2 skipped tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.

CMSIS-Core.src ‑ lda.c
CMSIS-Core.src ‑ ldaex.c
CMSIS-Core.src ‑ stl.c
CMSIS-Core.src ‑ stlex.c
CMSIS-Core.src ‑ systick.c

TC_CoreInstr_WFE
TC_CoreInstr_WFI

[JonatanAntoni]

@smmasongt please check the Copilot comments and resolve the conversations if you are happy.

[smmasongt]

LGTM, did you consider enhancing Core Tests and CoreValidation to run with TI Compiler? Doing so, and assuming we don't need a special license to run the compiler in GitHub Actions, this could help to seal compiler support.

PS: CoreValidation is using CMSIS-Toolbox thus we'd need a contribution to enable TI Compiler with Csolution, too.

Hello, I'll look into contributing to this. It may be beyond my current capabilities though.

[smmasongt]

@smmasongt please check the Copilot comments and resolve the conversations if you are happy.

I resolved these as "No Change".

1. __ti_version__ is a pre-defined macro of the compiler along with __ti__. These are documented in Section 2.6.1 of the compiler user guide. While the scenario could theoretically happen, it's so unlikely that I didn't feel the need for additional checks.
2. I tested the proposed macros for version reporting and they didn't function correctly in the TI environment. The existing error message gives a decent hint at the issue and the compiler version is relatively easy to determine via CLI (tiarmclang --version).