From: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
To: "Christoph Müllner" <cmuellner@gcc.gnu.org>,
"Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@dabbelt.com>
Cc: Vineet Gupta <vineetg@rivosinc.com>,
Andrea Parri <andrea@rivosinc.com>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, kito.cheng@sifive.com,
gnu-toolchain@rivosinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] [RISC-V] Atomics improvements [PR100265/PR100266]
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 17:11:16 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <63025f89-aa29-56b8-887d-7dbab3a5ed64@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHB2gtRjV-soEsSxb_mj8mmWs0mfq8j+gCjE4LW23wyKiR5MWQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1400 bytes --]
On 10/12/22 02:03, Christoph Müllner wrote:
>
>
> So we have the following atomics ABIs:
> I) GCC implementation
> II) LLVM implementation
> III) Specified ABI in the "Code Porting and Mapping Guidelines"
> appendix of the RISC-V specification
And presumably we don't have any way to distinguish between I and II at
the DSO or object level. That implies that if we're going to get to
III, then we have to mark new code. We obviously can't mark
pre-existing bits (and I may have implied we should do that in my
earlier message, my goof).
>
> And there are two proposed solutions:
> a) Finding a new ABI that is compatible with I) and II) is of course
> a solution, but we don't know if and when such a solution exists.
> b) Going to introduce III) causes a break and therefore needs special
> care (e.g. let the user decide via command line flag or provide a
> compatibility mode).
>
> I don't see that a) and b) contradict each other.
> Why not going for both:
> -) Continue to work on a backward compatible solution
> -) Enable the "new" ABI from the specification appendix via command
> line flag
> -) Reevaluate the situation in 12 months to decide the next steps
I would lean towards making the new, more correct, behavior the default
and having the old behavior enabled by a command line flag. But
otherwise what you're suggesting seems reasonable.
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-13 23:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-05 19:36 Christoph Muellner
2021-05-05 19:36 ` [PATCH v2 01/10] RISC-V: Simplify memory model code [PR 100265] Christoph Muellner
2021-05-05 19:36 ` [PATCH v2 02/10] RISC-V: Emit proper memory ordering suffixes for AMOs " Christoph Muellner
2021-05-05 19:36 ` [PATCH v2 03/10] RISC-V: Eliminate %F specifier from riscv_print_operand() " Christoph Muellner
2021-05-05 19:36 ` [PATCH v2 04/10] RISC-V: Use STORE instead of AMOSWAP for atomic stores " Christoph Muellner
2021-05-05 19:36 ` [PATCH v2 05/10] RISC-V: Emit fences according to chosen memory model " Christoph Muellner
2021-05-05 19:36 ` [PATCH v2 06/10] RISC-V: Implement atomic_{load,store} " Christoph Muellner
2021-05-05 19:36 ` [PATCH v2 07/10] RISC-V: Model INSNs for LR and SC [PR 100266] Christoph Muellner
2021-05-05 19:36 ` [PATCH v2 08/10] RISC-V: Add s.ext-consuming " Christoph Muellner
2021-05-05 19:36 ` [PATCH v2 09/10] RISC-V: Provide programmatic implementation of CAS " Christoph Muellner
2021-05-06 0:27 ` Jim Wilson
2021-05-05 19:36 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] RISC-V: Introduce predicate "riscv_sync_memory_operand" " Christoph Muellner
2022-10-11 19:06 ` [PATCH v2 00/10] [RISC-V] Atomics improvements [PR100265/PR100266] Vineet Gupta
2022-10-11 19:31 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2022-10-11 20:46 ` Christoph Müllner
2022-10-11 23:31 ` Vineet Gupta
2022-10-12 0:15 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2022-10-12 8:03 ` Christoph Müllner
2022-10-13 23:11 ` Jeff Law [this message]
2022-10-12 17:16 ` Andrea Parri
2022-10-20 19:01 ` Andrea Parri
2022-10-29 5:02 ` Jeff Law
2022-10-13 23:04 ` Jeff Law
2022-10-13 22:39 ` Jeff Law
2022-10-13 23:14 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2022-10-14 11:03 ` Christoph Müllner
2022-10-14 20:39 ` Jeff Law
2022-10-14 21:57 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2022-10-15 0:31 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2022-10-14 0:14 ` Vineet Gupta
2022-10-11 23:14 ` Jeff Law
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=63025f89-aa29-56b8-887d-7dbab3a5ed64@gmail.com \
--to=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=andrea@rivosinc.com \
--cc=cmuellner@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gnu-toolchain@rivosinc.com \
--cc=kito.cheng@sifive.com \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=vineetg@rivosinc.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).