* [PATCH] RISC-V: Add configure check for Zaamo/Zalrsc assembler support
@ 2024-06-12 23:20 Patrick O'Neill
2024-06-12 23:39 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2024-06-13 20:02 ` Jeff Law
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Patrick O'Neill @ 2024-06-12 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches
Cc: kito.cheng, jeffreyalaw, palmer, gnu-toolchain, pan2.li, schwab,
andrea, Patrick O'Neill
Binutils 2.42 and before don't support Zaamo/Zalrsc. Add a configure
check to prevent emitting Zaamo/Zalrsc in the arch string when the
assember does not support it.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
(riscv_subset_list::to_string): Skip zaamo/zalrsc when not
supported by the assembler.
* config.in: Regenerate.
* configure: Regenerate.
* configure.ac: Add zaamo/zalrsc assmeber check.
Signed-off-by: Patrick O'Neill <patrick@rivosinc.com>
---
Tested using newlib rv64gc with binutils tip-of-tree and 2.42.
This results in calls being emitted when compiling for _zaamo_zalrsc
when the assember does not support these extensions.
> cat amo.c
void foo (int* bar, int* baz)
{
__atomic_add_fetch(bar, baz, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
}
> gcc -march=rv64id_zaamo_zalrsc -O3 amo.c
results in:
foo:
sext.w a1,a1
li a2,0
tail __atomic_fetch_add_4
As a result there are some testsuite failures on zalrsc specific
testcases and when using an old version of binutils on non-a targets.
Not a cause for concern imo but worth calling out.
Also testcases that check for the default isa string will fail with
the old binutils since zaamo/zalrsc aren't emitted anymore.
---
gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc | 11 +++++++
gcc/config.in | 6 ++++
gcc/configure | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
gcc/configure.ac | 5 +++
4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
index 78dfd6b1470..1dc1d9904c7 100644
--- a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
+++ b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
@@ -916,6 +916,7 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
riscv_subset_t *subset;
bool skip_zifencei = false;
+ bool skip_zaamo_zalrsc = false;
bool skip_zicsr = false;
bool i2p0 = false;
@@ -943,6 +944,10 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
a mistake in that binutils 2.35 supports zicsr but not zifencei. */
skip_zifencei = true;
#endif
+#ifndef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC
+ /* Skip since binutils 2.42 and earlier don't recognize zaamo/zalrsc. */
+ skip_zaamo_zalrsc = true;
+#endif
for (subset = m_head; subset != NULL; subset = subset->next)
{
@@ -954,6 +959,12 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
subset->name == "zicsr")
continue;
+ if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zaamo")
+ continue;
+
+ if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zalrsc")
+ continue;
+
/* For !version_p, we only separate extension with underline for
multi-letter extension. */
if (!first &&
diff --git a/gcc/config.in b/gcc/config.in
index e41b6dc97cd..acab3c0f126 100644
--- a/gcc/config.in
+++ b/gcc/config.in
@@ -629,6 +629,12 @@
#endif
+/* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc. */
+#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
+#undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC
+#endif
+
+
/* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei. */
#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
#undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI
diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure
index aaf5899cc03..09b794c1225 100755
--- a/gcc/configure
+++ b/gcc/configure
@@ -6228,7 +6228,7 @@ else
We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
-#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
+#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
&& LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
? 1 : -1];
@@ -6274,7 +6274,7 @@ else
We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
-#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
+#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
&& LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
? 1 : -1];
@@ -6298,7 +6298,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext
We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
-#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
+#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
&& LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
? 1 : -1];
@@ -6343,7 +6343,7 @@ else
We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
-#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
+#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
&& LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
? 1 : -1];
@@ -6367,7 +6367,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext
We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
-#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
+#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
&& LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
? 1 : -1];
@@ -30820,6 +30820,37 @@ if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zifencei = yes; then
$as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI 1" >>confdefs.h
+fi
+
+ { $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support" >&5
+$as_echo_n "checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support... " >&6; }
+if ${gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc+:} false; then :
+ $as_echo_n "(cached) " >&6
+else
+ gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=no
+ if test x$gcc_cv_as != x; then
+ $as_echo '' > conftest.s
+ if { ac_try='$gcc_cv_as $gcc_cv_as_flags -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc -o conftest.o conftest.s >&5'
+ { { eval echo "\"\$as_me\":${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \"$ac_try\""; } >&5
+ (eval $ac_try) 2>&5
+ ac_status=$?
+ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \$? = $ac_status" >&5
+ test $ac_status = 0; }; }
+ then
+ gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=yes
+ else
+ echo "configure: failed program was" >&5
+ cat conftest.s >&5
+ fi
+ rm -f conftest.o conftest.s
+ fi
+fi
+{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&5
+$as_echo "$gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&6; }
+if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc = yes; then
+
+$as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC 1" >>confdefs.h
+
fi
;;
diff --git a/gcc/configure.ac b/gcc/configure.ac
index f8d67efeb98..c54748cd9aa 100644
--- a/gcc/configure.ac
+++ b/gcc/configure.ac
@@ -5452,6 +5452,11 @@ configured with --enable-newlib-nano-formatted-io.])
[-march=rv32i_zifencei2p0],,,
[AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI, 1,
[Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei.])])
+ gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support],
+ gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc,
+ [-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc],,,
+ [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC, 1,
+ [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc.])])
;;
loongarch*-*-*)
gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([.dtprelword support],
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add configure check for Zaamo/Zalrsc assembler support
2024-06-12 23:20 [PATCH] RISC-V: Add configure check for Zaamo/Zalrsc assembler support Patrick O'Neill
@ 2024-06-12 23:39 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2024-06-12 23:49 ` Sam James
2024-06-13 20:02 ` Jeff Law
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Palmer Dabbelt @ 2024-06-12 23:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick O'Neill
Cc: gcc-patches, Kito Cheng, jeffreyalaw, gnu-toolchain, pan2.li,
schwab, Andrea Parri, Patrick O'Neill
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:20:26 PDT (-0700), Patrick O'Neill wrote:
> Binutils 2.42 and before don't support Zaamo/Zalrsc. Add a configure
> check to prevent emitting Zaamo/Zalrsc in the arch string when the
> assember does not support it.
Should we just rewrite these to A when binutils doesn't support the
subsets? That'd avoid a forced binutils bump, but really user should be
upgrading anyway... Either way
Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V
Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V
though I'm not suer if the configure churn is sane, it looks like a
version mismatch of some sort. Hopefully someone who knows those bits
better can chime in?
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
> (riscv_subset_list::to_string): Skip zaamo/zalrsc when not
> supported by the assembler.
> * config.in: Regenerate.
> * configure: Regenerate.
> * configure.ac: Add zaamo/zalrsc assmeber check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Patrick O'Neill <patrick@rivosinc.com>
> ---
> Tested using newlib rv64gc with binutils tip-of-tree and 2.42.
>
> This results in calls being emitted when compiling for _zaamo_zalrsc
> when the assember does not support these extensions.
>
>> cat amo.c
> void foo (int* bar, int* baz)
> {
> __atomic_add_fetch(bar, baz, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> }
>> gcc -march=rv64id_zaamo_zalrsc -O3 amo.c
> results in:
> foo:
> sext.w a1,a1
> li a2,0
> tail __atomic_fetch_add_4
>
> As a result there are some testsuite failures on zalrsc specific
> testcases and when using an old version of binutils on non-a targets.
> Not a cause for concern imo but worth calling out.
> Also testcases that check for the default isa string will fail with
> the old binutils since zaamo/zalrsc aren't emitted anymore.
> ---
> gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc | 11 +++++++
> gcc/config.in | 6 ++++
> gcc/configure | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
> gcc/configure.ac | 5 +++
> 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
> index 78dfd6b1470..1dc1d9904c7 100644
> --- a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
> +++ b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
> @@ -916,6 +916,7 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
> riscv_subset_t *subset;
>
> bool skip_zifencei = false;
> + bool skip_zaamo_zalrsc = false;
> bool skip_zicsr = false;
> bool i2p0 = false;
>
> @@ -943,6 +944,10 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
> a mistake in that binutils 2.35 supports zicsr but not zifencei. */
> skip_zifencei = true;
> #endif
> +#ifndef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC
> + /* Skip since binutils 2.42 and earlier don't recognize zaamo/zalrsc. */
> + skip_zaamo_zalrsc = true;
> +#endif
>
> for (subset = m_head; subset != NULL; subset = subset->next)
> {
> @@ -954,6 +959,12 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
> subset->name == "zicsr")
> continue;
>
> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zaamo")
> + continue;
> +
> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zalrsc")
> + continue;
> +
> /* For !version_p, we only separate extension with underline for
> multi-letter extension. */
> if (!first &&
> diff --git a/gcc/config.in b/gcc/config.in
> index e41b6dc97cd..acab3c0f126 100644
> --- a/gcc/config.in
> +++ b/gcc/config.in
> @@ -629,6 +629,12 @@
> #endif
>
>
> +/* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc. */
> +#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
> +#undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC
> +#endif
> +
> +
> /* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei. */
> #ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
> #undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI
> diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure
> index aaf5899cc03..09b794c1225 100755
> --- a/gcc/configure
> +++ b/gcc/configure
> @@ -6228,7 +6228,7 @@ else
> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
> ? 1 : -1];
> @@ -6274,7 +6274,7 @@ else
> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
> ? 1 : -1];
> @@ -6298,7 +6298,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext
> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
> ? 1 : -1];
> @@ -6343,7 +6343,7 @@ else
> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
> ? 1 : -1];
> @@ -6367,7 +6367,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext
> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
> ? 1 : -1];
> @@ -30820,6 +30820,37 @@ if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zifencei = yes; then
>
> $as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI 1" >>confdefs.h
>
> +fi
> +
> + { $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support" >&5
> +$as_echo_n "checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support... " >&6; }
> +if ${gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc+:} false; then :
> + $as_echo_n "(cached) " >&6
> +else
> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=no
> + if test x$gcc_cv_as != x; then
> + $as_echo '' > conftest.s
> + if { ac_try='$gcc_cv_as $gcc_cv_as_flags -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc -o conftest.o conftest.s >&5'
> + { { eval echo "\"\$as_me\":${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \"$ac_try\""; } >&5
> + (eval $ac_try) 2>&5
> + ac_status=$?
> + $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \$? = $ac_status" >&5
> + test $ac_status = 0; }; }
> + then
> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=yes
> + else
> + echo "configure: failed program was" >&5
> + cat conftest.s >&5
> + fi
> + rm -f conftest.o conftest.s
> + fi
> +fi
> +{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&5
> +$as_echo "$gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&6; }
> +if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc = yes; then
> +
> +$as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC 1" >>confdefs.h
> +
> fi
>
> ;;
> diff --git a/gcc/configure.ac b/gcc/configure.ac
> index f8d67efeb98..c54748cd9aa 100644
> --- a/gcc/configure.ac
> +++ b/gcc/configure.ac
> @@ -5452,6 +5452,11 @@ configured with --enable-newlib-nano-formatted-io.])
> [-march=rv32i_zifencei2p0],,,
> [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI, 1,
> [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei.])])
> + gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support],
> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc,
> + [-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc],,,
> + [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC, 1,
> + [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc.])])
> ;;
> loongarch*-*-*)
> gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([.dtprelword support],
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add configure check for Zaamo/Zalrsc assembler support
2024-06-12 23:39 ` Palmer Dabbelt
@ 2024-06-12 23:49 ` Sam James
2024-06-12 23:56 ` Patrick O'Neill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Sam James @ 2024-06-12 23:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Palmer Dabbelt
Cc: Patrick O'Neill, gcc-patches, Kito Cheng, jeffreyalaw,
gnu-toolchain, pan2.li, schwab, Andrea Parri
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9138 bytes --]
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> writes:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:20:26 PDT (-0700), Patrick O'Neill wrote:
>> Binutils 2.42 and before don't support Zaamo/Zalrsc. Add a configure
>> check to prevent emitting Zaamo/Zalrsc in the arch string when the
>> assember does not support it.
>
> Should we just rewrite these to A when binutils doesn't support the
> subsets? That'd avoid a forced binutils bump, but really user should
> be upgrading anyway... Either way
>
> Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V
> Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V
>
> though I'm not suer if the configure churn is sane, it looks like a
> version mismatch of some sort. Hopefully someone who knows those bits
> better can chime in?
Your instinct is right!
>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>> (riscv_subset_list::to_string): Skip zaamo/zalrsc when not
>> supported by the assembler.
>> * config.in: Regenerate.
>> * configure: Regenerate.
>> * configure.ac: Add zaamo/zalrsc assmeber check.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Patrick O'Neill <patrick@rivosinc.com>
>> ---
>> Tested using newlib rv64gc with binutils tip-of-tree and 2.42.
>>
>> This results in calls being emitted when compiling for _zaamo_zalrsc
>> when the assember does not support these extensions.
>>
>>> cat amo.c
>> void foo (int* bar, int* baz)
>> {
>> __atomic_add_fetch(bar, baz, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
>> }
>>> gcc -march=rv64id_zaamo_zalrsc -O3 amo.c
>> results in:
>> foo:
>> sext.w a1,a1
>> li a2,0
>> tail __atomic_fetch_add_4
>>
>> As a result there are some testsuite failures on zalrsc specific
>> testcases and when using an old version of binutils on non-a targets.
>> Not a cause for concern imo but worth calling out.
>> Also testcases that check for the default isa string will fail with
>> the old binutils since zaamo/zalrsc aren't emitted anymore.
>> ---
>> gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc | 11 +++++++
>> gcc/config.in | 6 ++++
>> gcc/configure | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> gcc/configure.ac | 5 +++
>> 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>> index 78dfd6b1470..1dc1d9904c7 100644
>> --- a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>> +++ b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>> @@ -916,6 +916,7 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
>> riscv_subset_t *subset;
>>
>> bool skip_zifencei = false;
>> + bool skip_zaamo_zalrsc = false;
>> bool skip_zicsr = false;
>> bool i2p0 = false;
>>
>> @@ -943,6 +944,10 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
>> a mistake in that binutils 2.35 supports zicsr but not zifencei. */
>> skip_zifencei = true;
>> #endif
>> +#ifndef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC
>> + /* Skip since binutils 2.42 and earlier don't recognize zaamo/zalrsc. */
>> + skip_zaamo_zalrsc = true;
>> +#endif
>>
>> for (subset = m_head; subset != NULL; subset = subset->next)
>> {
>> @@ -954,6 +959,12 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
>> subset->name == "zicsr")
>> continue;
>>
>> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zaamo")
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zalrsc")
>> + continue;
>> +
>> /* For !version_p, we only separate extension with underline for
>> multi-letter extension. */
>> if (!first &&
>> diff --git a/gcc/config.in b/gcc/config.in
>> index e41b6dc97cd..acab3c0f126 100644
>> --- a/gcc/config.in
>> +++ b/gcc/config.in
>> @@ -629,6 +629,12 @@
>> #endif
>>
>>
>> +/* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc. */
>> +#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
>> +#undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +
>> /* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei. */
>> #ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
>> #undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI
>> diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure
>> index aaf5899cc03..09b794c1225 100755
>> --- a/gcc/configure
>> +++ b/gcc/configure
>> @@ -6228,7 +6228,7 @@ else
>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
I think you may be using patched autoconf which fixes
http://bugs.debian.org/742780.
The fix landed in 2.70: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=commit;h=a1d8293f3bfa2516f9a0424e3a6e63c2f8e93c6e.
Please drop those hunks.
>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>> ? 1 : -1];
>> @@ -6274,7 +6274,7 @@ else
>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>> ? 1 : -1];
>> @@ -6298,7 +6298,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext
>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>> ? 1 : -1];
>> @@ -6343,7 +6343,7 @@ else
>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>> ? 1 : -1];
>> @@ -6367,7 +6367,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext
>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>> ? 1 : -1];
>> @@ -30820,6 +30820,37 @@ if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zifencei = yes; then
>>
>> $as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI 1" >>confdefs.h
>>
>> +fi
>> +
>> + { $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support" >&5
>> +$as_echo_n "checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support... " >&6; }
>> +if ${gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc+:} false; then :
>> + $as_echo_n "(cached) " >&6
>> +else
>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=no
>> + if test x$gcc_cv_as != x; then
>> + $as_echo '' > conftest.s
>> + if { ac_try='$gcc_cv_as $gcc_cv_as_flags -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc -o conftest.o conftest.s >&5'
>> + { { eval echo "\"\$as_me\":${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \"$ac_try\""; } >&5
>> + (eval $ac_try) 2>&5
>> + ac_status=$?
>> + $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \$? = $ac_status" >&5
>> + test $ac_status = 0; }; }
>> + then
>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=yes
>> + else
>> + echo "configure: failed program was" >&5
>> + cat conftest.s >&5
>> + fi
>> + rm -f conftest.o conftest.s
>> + fi
>> +fi
>> +{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&5
>> +$as_echo "$gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&6; }
>> +if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc = yes; then
>> +
>> +$as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC 1" >>confdefs.h
>> +
>> fi
>>
>> ;;
>> diff --git a/gcc/configure.ac b/gcc/configure.ac
>> index f8d67efeb98..c54748cd9aa 100644
>> --- a/gcc/configure.ac
>> +++ b/gcc/configure.ac
>> @@ -5452,6 +5452,11 @@ configured with --enable-newlib-nano-formatted-io.])
>> [-march=rv32i_zifencei2p0],,,
>> [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI, 1,
>> [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei.])])
>> + gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support],
>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc,
>> + [-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc],,,
>> + [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC, 1,
>> + [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc.])])
>> ;;
>> loongarch*-*-*)
>> gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([.dtprelword support],
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add configure check for Zaamo/Zalrsc assembler support
2024-06-12 23:49 ` Sam James
@ 2024-06-12 23:56 ` Patrick O'Neill
2024-06-13 0:01 ` Palmer Dabbelt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Patrick O'Neill @ 2024-06-12 23:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sam James, Palmer Dabbelt
Cc: gcc-patches, Kito Cheng, jeffreyalaw, gnu-toolchain, pan2.li,
schwab, Andrea Parri
On 6/12/24 16:49, Sam James wrote:
> Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:20:26 PDT (-0700), Patrick O'Neill wrote:
>>> Binutils 2.42 and before don't support Zaamo/Zalrsc. Add a configure
>>> check to prevent emitting Zaamo/Zalrsc in the arch string when the
>>> assember does not support it.
>> Should we just rewrite these to A when binutils doesn't support the
>> subsets? That'd avoid a forced binutils bump, but really user should
>> be upgrading anyway... Either way
>>
>> Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V
>> Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V
>>
>> though I'm not suer if the configure churn is sane, it looks like a
>> version mismatch of some sort. Hopefully someone who knows those bits
>> better can chime in?
> Your instinct is right!
>
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>>> (riscv_subset_list::to_string): Skip zaamo/zalrsc when not
>>> supported by the assembler.
>>> * config.in: Regenerate.
>>> * configure: Regenerate.
>>> * configure.ac: Add zaamo/zalrsc assmeber check.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Patrick O'Neill <patrick@rivosinc.com>
>>> ---
>>> Tested using newlib rv64gc with binutils tip-of-tree and 2.42.
>>>
>>> This results in calls being emitted when compiling for _zaamo_zalrsc
>>> when the assember does not support these extensions.
>>>
>>>> cat amo.c
>>> void foo (int* bar, int* baz)
>>> {
>>> __atomic_add_fetch(bar, baz, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
>>> }
>>>> gcc -march=rv64id_zaamo_zalrsc -O3 amo.c
>>> results in:
>>> foo:
>>> sext.w a1,a1
>>> li a2,0
>>> tail __atomic_fetch_add_4
>>>
>>> As a result there are some testsuite failures on zalrsc specific
>>> testcases and when using an old version of binutils on non-a targets.
>>> Not a cause for concern imo but worth calling out.
>>> Also testcases that check for the default isa string will fail with
>>> the old binutils since zaamo/zalrsc aren't emitted anymore.
>>> ---
>>> gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc | 11 +++++++
>>> gcc/config.in | 6 ++++
>>> gcc/configure | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>> gcc/configure.ac | 5 +++
>>> 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>>> index 78dfd6b1470..1dc1d9904c7 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>>> +++ b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>>> @@ -916,6 +916,7 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
>>> riscv_subset_t *subset;
>>>
>>> bool skip_zifencei = false;
>>> + bool skip_zaamo_zalrsc = false;
>>> bool skip_zicsr = false;
>>> bool i2p0 = false;
>>>
>>> @@ -943,6 +944,10 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
>>> a mistake in that binutils 2.35 supports zicsr but not zifencei. */
>>> skip_zifencei = true;
>>> #endif
>>> +#ifndef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC
>>> + /* Skip since binutils 2.42 and earlier don't recognize zaamo/zalrsc. */
>>> + skip_zaamo_zalrsc = true;
>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> for (subset = m_head; subset != NULL; subset = subset->next)
>>> {
>>> @@ -954,6 +959,12 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
>>> subset->name == "zicsr")
>>> continue;
>>>
>>> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zaamo")
>>> + continue;
>>> +
>>> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zalrsc")
>>> + continue;
>>> +
>>> /* For !version_p, we only separate extension with underline for
>>> multi-letter extension. */
>>> if (!first &&
>>> diff --git a/gcc/config.in b/gcc/config.in
>>> index e41b6dc97cd..acab3c0f126 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/config.in
>>> +++ b/gcc/config.in
>>> @@ -629,6 +629,12 @@
>>> #endif
>>>
>>>
>>> +/* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc. */
>>> +#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
>>> +#undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC
>>> +#endif
>>> +
>>> +
>>> /* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei. */
>>> #ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
>>> #undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI
>>> diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure
>>> index aaf5899cc03..09b794c1225 100755
>>> --- a/gcc/configure
>>> +++ b/gcc/configure
>>> @@ -6228,7 +6228,7 @@ else
>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
> I think you may be using patched autoconf which fixes
> http://bugs.debian.org/742780.
>
> The fix landed in 2.70: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=commit;h=a1d8293f3bfa2516f9a0424e3a6e63c2f8e93c6e.
>
> Please drop those hunks.
I thought I could get away with using the apt autoconf2.69 package
directly ;)
Thanks. I'll regenerate without those hunks for v2.
Patrick
>
>
>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>>> ? 1 : -1];
>>> @@ -6274,7 +6274,7 @@ else
>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>>> ? 1 : -1];
>>> @@ -6298,7 +6298,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext
>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>>> ? 1 : -1];
>>> @@ -6343,7 +6343,7 @@ else
>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>>> ? 1 : -1];
>>> @@ -6367,7 +6367,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext
>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>>> ? 1 : -1];
>>> @@ -30820,6 +30820,37 @@ if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zifencei = yes; then
>>>
>>> $as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI 1" >>confdefs.h
>>>
>>> +fi
>>> +
>>> + { $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support" >&5
>>> +$as_echo_n "checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support... " >&6; }
>>> +if ${gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc+:} false; then :
>>> + $as_echo_n "(cached) " >&6
>>> +else
>>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=no
>>> + if test x$gcc_cv_as != x; then
>>> + $as_echo '' > conftest.s
>>> + if { ac_try='$gcc_cv_as $gcc_cv_as_flags -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc -o conftest.o conftest.s >&5'
>>> + { { eval echo "\"\$as_me\":${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \"$ac_try\""; } >&5
>>> + (eval $ac_try) 2>&5
>>> + ac_status=$?
>>> + $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \$? = $ac_status" >&5
>>> + test $ac_status = 0; }; }
>>> + then
>>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=yes
>>> + else
>>> + echo "configure: failed program was" >&5
>>> + cat conftest.s >&5
>>> + fi
>>> + rm -f conftest.o conftest.s
>>> + fi
>>> +fi
>>> +{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&5
>>> +$as_echo "$gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&6; }
>>> +if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc = yes; then
>>> +
>>> +$as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC 1" >>confdefs.h
>>> +
>>> fi
>>>
>>> ;;
>>> diff --git a/gcc/configure.ac b/gcc/configure.ac
>>> index f8d67efeb98..c54748cd9aa 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/configure.ac
>>> +++ b/gcc/configure.ac
>>> @@ -5452,6 +5452,11 @@ configured with --enable-newlib-nano-formatted-io.])
>>> [-march=rv32i_zifencei2p0],,,
>>> [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI, 1,
>>> [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei.])])
>>> + gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support],
>>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc,
>>> + [-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc],,,
>>> + [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC, 1,
>>> + [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc.])])
>>> ;;
>>> loongarch*-*-*)
>>> gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([.dtprelword support],
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add configure check for Zaamo/Zalrsc assembler support
2024-06-12 23:56 ` Patrick O'Neill
@ 2024-06-13 0:01 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2024-06-13 0:10 ` Sam James
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Palmer Dabbelt @ 2024-06-13 0:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick O'Neill
Cc: sam, gcc-patches, Kito Cheng, jeffreyalaw, gnu-toolchain,
pan2.li, schwab, Andrea Parri
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:56:09 PDT (-0700), Patrick O'Neill wrote:
>
> On 6/12/24 16:49, Sam James wrote:
>> Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:20:26 PDT (-0700), Patrick O'Neill wrote:
>>>> Binutils 2.42 and before don't support Zaamo/Zalrsc. Add a configure
>>>> check to prevent emitting Zaamo/Zalrsc in the arch string when the
>>>> assember does not support it.
>>> Should we just rewrite these to A when binutils doesn't support the
>>> subsets? That'd avoid a forced binutils bump, but really user should
>>> be upgrading anyway... Either way
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V
>>> Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V
>>>
>>> though I'm not suer if the configure churn is sane, it looks like a
>>> version mismatch of some sort. Hopefully someone who knows those bits
>>> better can chime in?
>> Your instinct is right!
>>
>>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>>>> (riscv_subset_list::to_string): Skip zaamo/zalrsc when not
>>>> supported by the assembler.
>>>> * config.in: Regenerate.
>>>> * configure: Regenerate.
>>>> * configure.ac: Add zaamo/zalrsc assmeber check.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Patrick O'Neill <patrick@rivosinc.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Tested using newlib rv64gc with binutils tip-of-tree and 2.42.
>>>>
>>>> This results in calls being emitted when compiling for _zaamo_zalrsc
>>>> when the assember does not support these extensions.
>>>>
>>>>> cat amo.c
>>>> void foo (int* bar, int* baz)
>>>> {
>>>> __atomic_add_fetch(bar, baz, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
>>>> }
>>>>> gcc -march=rv64id_zaamo_zalrsc -O3 amo.c
>>>> results in:
>>>> foo:
>>>> sext.w a1,a1
>>>> li a2,0
>>>> tail __atomic_fetch_add_4
>>>>
>>>> As a result there are some testsuite failures on zalrsc specific
>>>> testcases and when using an old version of binutils on non-a targets.
>>>> Not a cause for concern imo but worth calling out.
>>>> Also testcases that check for the default isa string will fail with
>>>> the old binutils since zaamo/zalrsc aren't emitted anymore.
>>>> ---
>>>> gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc | 11 +++++++
>>>> gcc/config.in | 6 ++++
>>>> gcc/configure | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>> gcc/configure.ac | 5 +++
>>>> 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>>>> index 78dfd6b1470..1dc1d9904c7 100644
>>>> --- a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>>>> +++ b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>>>> @@ -916,6 +916,7 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
>>>> riscv_subset_t *subset;
>>>>
>>>> bool skip_zifencei = false;
>>>> + bool skip_zaamo_zalrsc = false;
>>>> bool skip_zicsr = false;
>>>> bool i2p0 = false;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -943,6 +944,10 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
>>>> a mistake in that binutils 2.35 supports zicsr but not zifencei. */
>>>> skip_zifencei = true;
>>>> #endif
>>>> +#ifndef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC
>>>> + /* Skip since binutils 2.42 and earlier don't recognize zaamo/zalrsc. */
>>>> + skip_zaamo_zalrsc = true;
>>>> +#endif
>>>>
>>>> for (subset = m_head; subset != NULL; subset = subset->next)
>>>> {
>>>> @@ -954,6 +959,12 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
>>>> subset->name == "zicsr")
>>>> continue;
>>>>
>>>> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zaamo")
>>>> + continue;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zalrsc")
>>>> + continue;
>>>> +
>>>> /* For !version_p, we only separate extension with underline for
>>>> multi-letter extension. */
>>>> if (!first &&
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/config.in b/gcc/config.in
>>>> index e41b6dc97cd..acab3c0f126 100644
>>>> --- a/gcc/config.in
>>>> +++ b/gcc/config.in
>>>> @@ -629,6 +629,12 @@
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +/* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc. */
>>>> +#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
>>>> +#undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +
>>>> +
>>>> /* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei. */
>>>> #ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
>>>> #undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure
>>>> index aaf5899cc03..09b794c1225 100755
>>>> --- a/gcc/configure
>>>> +++ b/gcc/configure
>>>> @@ -6228,7 +6228,7 @@ else
>>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>> I think you may be using patched autoconf which fixes
>> http://bugs.debian.org/742780.
>>
>> The fix landed in 2.70: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=commit;h=a1d8293f3bfa2516f9a0424e3a6e63c2f8e93c6e.
>>
>> Please drop those hunks.
>
> I thought I could get away with using the apt autoconf2.69 package
> directly ;)
>
> Thanks. I'll regenerate without those hunks for v2.
FWIW, I just use the distro packages, toss the hunks I don't like, and
thes re-build things to make sure it doesn't fall over and die. Just
don't tell the autoconf people that, I'm sure they'd be horrified ;)
>
> Patrick
>
>>
>>
>>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>>>> ? 1 : -1];
>>>> @@ -6274,7 +6274,7 @@ else
>>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>>>> ? 1 : -1];
>>>> @@ -6298,7 +6298,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext
>>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>>>> ? 1 : -1];
>>>> @@ -6343,7 +6343,7 @@ else
>>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>>>> ? 1 : -1];
>>>> @@ -6367,7 +6367,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext
>>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>>>> ? 1 : -1];
>>>> @@ -30820,6 +30820,37 @@ if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zifencei = yes; then
>>>>
>>>> $as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI 1" >>confdefs.h
>>>>
>>>> +fi
>>>> +
>>>> + { $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support" >&5
>>>> +$as_echo_n "checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support... " >&6; }
>>>> +if ${gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc+:} false; then :
>>>> + $as_echo_n "(cached) " >&6
>>>> +else
>>>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=no
>>>> + if test x$gcc_cv_as != x; then
>>>> + $as_echo '' > conftest.s
>>>> + if { ac_try='$gcc_cv_as $gcc_cv_as_flags -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc -o conftest.o conftest.s >&5'
>>>> + { { eval echo "\"\$as_me\":${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \"$ac_try\""; } >&5
>>>> + (eval $ac_try) 2>&5
>>>> + ac_status=$?
>>>> + $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \$? = $ac_status" >&5
>>>> + test $ac_status = 0; }; }
>>>> + then
>>>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=yes
>>>> + else
>>>> + echo "configure: failed program was" >&5
>>>> + cat conftest.s >&5
>>>> + fi
>>>> + rm -f conftest.o conftest.s
>>>> + fi
>>>> +fi
>>>> +{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&5
>>>> +$as_echo "$gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&6; }
>>>> +if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc = yes; then
>>>> +
>>>> +$as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC 1" >>confdefs.h
>>>> +
>>>> fi
>>>>
>>>> ;;
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/configure.ac b/gcc/configure.ac
>>>> index f8d67efeb98..c54748cd9aa 100644
>>>> --- a/gcc/configure.ac
>>>> +++ b/gcc/configure.ac
>>>> @@ -5452,6 +5452,11 @@ configured with --enable-newlib-nano-formatted-io.])
>>>> [-march=rv32i_zifencei2p0],,,
>>>> [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI, 1,
>>>> [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei.])])
>>>> + gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support],
>>>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc,
>>>> + [-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc],,,
>>>> + [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC, 1,
>>>> + [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc.])])
>>>> ;;
>>>> loongarch*-*-*)
>>>> gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([.dtprelword support],
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add configure check for Zaamo/Zalrsc assembler support
2024-06-13 0:01 ` Palmer Dabbelt
@ 2024-06-13 0:10 ` Sam James
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Sam James @ 2024-06-13 0:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Palmer Dabbelt
Cc: Patrick O'Neill, gcc-patches, Kito Cheng, jeffreyalaw,
gnu-toolchain, pan2.li, schwab, Andrea Parri
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10635 bytes --]
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> writes:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:56:09 PDT (-0700), Patrick O'Neill wrote:
>>
>> On 6/12/24 16:49, Sam James wrote:
>>> Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:20:26 PDT (-0700), Patrick O'Neill wrote:
>>>>> Binutils 2.42 and before don't support Zaamo/Zalrsc. Add a configure
>>>>> check to prevent emitting Zaamo/Zalrsc in the arch string when the
>>>>> assember does not support it.
>>>> Should we just rewrite these to A when binutils doesn't support the
>>>> subsets? That'd avoid a forced binutils bump, but really user should
>>>> be upgrading anyway... Either way
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V
>>>> Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V
>>>>
>>>> though I'm not suer if the configure churn is sane, it looks like a
>>>> version mismatch of some sort. Hopefully someone who knows those bits
>>>> better can chime in?
>>> Your instinct is right!
>>>
>>>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>>>
>>>>> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>>>>> (riscv_subset_list::to_string): Skip zaamo/zalrsc when not
>>>>> supported by the assembler.
>>>>> * config.in: Regenerate.
>>>>> * configure: Regenerate.
>>>>> * configure.ac: Add zaamo/zalrsc assmeber check.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Patrick O'Neill <patrick@rivosinc.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Tested using newlib rv64gc with binutils tip-of-tree and 2.42.
>>>>>
>>>>> This results in calls being emitted when compiling for _zaamo_zalrsc
>>>>> when the assember does not support these extensions.
>>>>>
>>>>>> cat amo.c
>>>>> void foo (int* bar, int* baz)
>>>>> {
>>>>> __atomic_add_fetch(bar, baz, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
>>>>> }
>>>>>> gcc -march=rv64id_zaamo_zalrsc -O3 amo.c
>>>>> results in:
>>>>> foo:
>>>>> sext.w a1,a1
>>>>> li a2,0
>>>>> tail __atomic_fetch_add_4
>>>>>
>>>>> As a result there are some testsuite failures on zalrsc specific
>>>>> testcases and when using an old version of binutils on non-a targets.
>>>>> Not a cause for concern imo but worth calling out.
>>>>> Also testcases that check for the default isa string will fail with
>>>>> the old binutils since zaamo/zalrsc aren't emitted anymore.
>>>>> ---
>>>>> gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc | 11 +++++++
>>>>> gcc/config.in | 6 ++++
>>>>> gcc/configure | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>> gcc/configure.ac | 5 +++
>>>>> 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>>>>> index 78dfd6b1470..1dc1d9904c7 100644
>>>>> --- a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>>>>> +++ b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>>>>> @@ -916,6 +916,7 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
>>>>> riscv_subset_t *subset;
>>>>>
>>>>> bool skip_zifencei = false;
>>>>> + bool skip_zaamo_zalrsc = false;
>>>>> bool skip_zicsr = false;
>>>>> bool i2p0 = false;
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -943,6 +944,10 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
>>>>> a mistake in that binutils 2.35 supports zicsr but not zifencei. */
>>>>> skip_zifencei = true;
>>>>> #endif
>>>>> +#ifndef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC
>>>>> + /* Skip since binutils 2.42 and earlier don't recognize zaamo/zalrsc. */
>>>>> + skip_zaamo_zalrsc = true;
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>
>>>>> for (subset = m_head; subset != NULL; subset = subset->next)
>>>>> {
>>>>> @@ -954,6 +959,12 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const
>>>>> subset->name == "zicsr")
>>>>> continue;
>>>>>
>>>>> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zaamo")
>>>>> + continue;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zalrsc")
>>>>> + continue;
>>>>> +
>>>>> /* For !version_p, we only separate extension with underline for
>>>>> multi-letter extension. */
>>>>> if (!first &&
>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/config.in b/gcc/config.in
>>>>> index e41b6dc97cd..acab3c0f126 100644
>>>>> --- a/gcc/config.in
>>>>> +++ b/gcc/config.in
>>>>> @@ -629,6 +629,12 @@
>>>>> #endif
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +/* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc. */
>>>>> +#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
>>>>> +#undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> +
>>>>> +
>>>>> /* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei. */
>>>>> #ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
>>>>> #undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI
>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure
>>>>> index aaf5899cc03..09b794c1225 100755
>>>>> --- a/gcc/configure
>>>>> +++ b/gcc/configure
>>>>> @@ -6228,7 +6228,7 @@ else
>>>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>>>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>>>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>>>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>>>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>>>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>>> I think you may be using patched autoconf which fixes
>>> http://bugs.debian.org/742780.
>>>
>>> The fix landed in 2.70: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=commit;h=a1d8293f3bfa2516f9a0424e3a6e63c2f8e93c6e.
>>>
>>> Please drop those hunks.
>>
>> I thought I could get away with using the apt autoconf2.69 package
>> directly ;)
>>
>> Thanks. I'll regenerate without those hunks for v2.
>
> FWIW, I just use the distro packages, toss the hunks I don't like, and
> thes re-build things to make sure it doesn't fall over and die. Just
> don't tell the autoconf people that, I'm sure they'd be horrified ;)
On good Linux distributions, you can do:
$ emerge dev-build/autoconf-vanilla dev-build/automake-vanilla
$ export WANT_AUTOCONF=vanilla-2.69 WANT_AUTOMAKE=vanilla-1.15
$ autoconf --version
autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.69
[...]
;)
>
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>>>>> ? 1 : -1];
>>>>> @@ -6274,7 +6274,7 @@ else
>>>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>>>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>>>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>>>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>>>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>>>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>>>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>>>>> ? 1 : -1];
>>>>> @@ -6298,7 +6298,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext
>>>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>>>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>>>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>>>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>>>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>>>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>>>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>>>>> ? 1 : -1];
>>>>> @@ -6343,7 +6343,7 @@ else
>>>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>>>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>>>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>>>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>>>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>>>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>>>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>>>>> ? 1 : -1];
>>>>> @@ -6367,7 +6367,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext
>>>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807,
>>>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers
>>>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */
>>>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62))
>>>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31))
>>>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721
>>>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1)
>>>>> ? 1 : -1];
>>>>> @@ -30820,6 +30820,37 @@ if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zifencei = yes; then
>>>>>
>>>>> $as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI 1" >>confdefs.h
>>>>>
>>>>> +fi
>>>>> +
>>>>> + { $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support" >&5
>>>>> +$as_echo_n "checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support... " >&6; }
>>>>> +if ${gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc+:} false; then :
>>>>> + $as_echo_n "(cached) " >&6
>>>>> +else
>>>>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=no
>>>>> + if test x$gcc_cv_as != x; then
>>>>> + $as_echo '' > conftest.s
>>>>> + if { ac_try='$gcc_cv_as $gcc_cv_as_flags -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc -o conftest.o conftest.s >&5'
>>>>> + { { eval echo "\"\$as_me\":${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \"$ac_try\""; } >&5
>>>>> + (eval $ac_try) 2>&5
>>>>> + ac_status=$?
>>>>> + $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \$? = $ac_status" >&5
>>>>> + test $ac_status = 0; }; }
>>>>> + then
>>>>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=yes
>>>>> + else
>>>>> + echo "configure: failed program was" >&5
>>>>> + cat conftest.s >&5
>>>>> + fi
>>>>> + rm -f conftest.o conftest.s
>>>>> + fi
>>>>> +fi
>>>>> +{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&5
>>>>> +$as_echo "$gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&6; }
>>>>> +if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc = yes; then
>>>>> +
>>>>> +$as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC 1" >>confdefs.h
>>>>> +
>>>>> fi
>>>>>
>>>>> ;;
>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/configure.ac b/gcc/configure.ac
>>>>> index f8d67efeb98..c54748cd9aa 100644
>>>>> --- a/gcc/configure.ac
>>>>> +++ b/gcc/configure.ac
>>>>> @@ -5452,6 +5452,11 @@ configured with --enable-newlib-nano-formatted-io.])
>>>>> [-march=rv32i_zifencei2p0],,,
>>>>> [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI, 1,
>>>>> [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei.])])
>>>>> + gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support],
>>>>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc,
>>>>> + [-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc],,,
>>>>> + [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC, 1,
>>>>> + [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc.])])
>>>>> ;;
>>>>> loongarch*-*-*)
>>>>> gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([.dtprelword support],
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add configure check for Zaamo/Zalrsc assembler support
2024-06-12 23:20 [PATCH] RISC-V: Add configure check for Zaamo/Zalrsc assembler support Patrick O'Neill
2024-06-12 23:39 ` Palmer Dabbelt
@ 2024-06-13 20:02 ` Jeff Law
2024-06-17 16:54 ` Patrick O'Neill
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2024-06-13 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick O'Neill, gcc-patches
Cc: kito.cheng, palmer, gnu-toolchain, pan2.li, schwab, andrea
On 6/12/24 5:20 PM, Patrick O'Neill wrote:
> Binutils 2.42 and before don't support Zaamo/Zalrsc. Add a configure
> check to prevent emitting Zaamo/Zalrsc in the arch string when the
> assember does not support it.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
> (riscv_subset_list::to_string): Skip zaamo/zalrsc when not
> supported by the assembler.
> * config.in: Regenerate.
> * configure: Regenerate.
> * configure.ac: Add zaamo/zalrsc assmeber check.
OK.
It looks like you've got some unexpected diff fragmets in configure --
all the LARGE_OFF_T stuff. They look OK to me, but something like that
is usually a sign of different autoconf versions. I wouldn't lose any
sleep if you left them as-is or removed those hunks before committing.
jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add configure check for Zaamo/Zalrsc assembler support
2024-06-13 20:02 ` Jeff Law
@ 2024-06-17 16:54 ` Patrick O'Neill
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Patrick O'Neill @ 2024-06-17 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Law, gcc-patches
Cc: kito.cheng, palmer, gnu-toolchain, pan2.li, schwab, andrea
On 6/13/24 13:02, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 6/12/24 5:20 PM, Patrick O'Neill wrote:
>> Binutils 2.42 and before don't support Zaamo/Zalrsc. Add a configure
>> check to prevent emitting Zaamo/Zalrsc in the arch string when the
>> assember does not support it.
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
>> (riscv_subset_list::to_string): Skip zaamo/zalrsc when not
>> supported by the assembler.
>> * config.in: Regenerate.
>> * configure: Regenerate.
>> * configure.ac: Add zaamo/zalrsc assmeber check.
> OK.
>
> It looks like you've got some unexpected diff fragmets in configure --
> all the LARGE_OFF_T stuff. They look OK to me, but something like
> that is usually a sign of different autoconf versions. I wouldn't
> lose any sleep if you left them as-is or removed those hunks before
> committing.
>
> jeff
>
Removed the hunks and committed.
Sent the committed version to the list for the archiver.
I'll rebase the promotion RFC [1] on top and resolve the warning that
Andreas Schwab noticed.
Patrick
[1]:
https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/patch/20240613233059.1451117-1-patrick@rivosinc.com/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-06-17 16:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-06-12 23:20 [PATCH] RISC-V: Add configure check for Zaamo/Zalrsc assembler support Patrick O'Neill
2024-06-12 23:39 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2024-06-12 23:49 ` Sam James
2024-06-12 23:56 ` Patrick O'Neill
2024-06-13 0:01 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2024-06-13 0:10 ` Sam James
2024-06-13 20:02 ` Jeff Law
2024-06-17 16:54 ` Patrick O'Neill
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).