[PATCH] doc: Document arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp

[PATCH] doc: Document arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp

[Christophe Lyon]

The arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp family of effective targets was not
documented when it was introduced.

2023-07-07  Christophe Lyon  <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>

	gcc/
	* doc/sourcebuild.texi (arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp): Document.
---
 gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
index 526020c7511..03fb2394705 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
@@ -2190,6 +2190,12 @@ ARM target supports options to generate instructions from ARMv8.1-M with
 the Custom Datapath Extension (CDE) and M-Profile Vector Extension (MVE).
 Some multilibs may be incompatible with these options.
 
+@item arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp
+ARM target supports options to generate instructions from ARMv8.1-M
+with the Custom Datapath Extension (CDE) and M-Profile Vector
+Extension (MVE) with floating-point support.  Some multilibs may be
+incompatible with these options.
+
 @item arm_pacbti_hw
 Test system supports executing Pointer Authentication and Branch Target
 Identification instructions.
-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH] testsuite: Add _link flavor for several arm_arch* and arm* effective-targets

[Christophe Lyon]

For arm targets, we generate many effective-targets with
check_effective_target_FUNC_multilib and
check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_multilib which check if we can
link and execute a simple program with a given set of flags/multilibs.

In some cases however, it's possible to link but not to execute a
program, so this patch adds similar _link effective-targets which only
check if link succeeds.

The patch does not uupdate the documentation as it already lacks the
numerous existing related effective-targets.

2023-07-07  Christophe Lyon  <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>

	gcc/testsuite/
	* lib/target-supports.exp (arm_*FUNC_link): New effective-targets.
---
 gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
index c04db2be7f9..d33bc077418 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
@@ -5129,6 +5129,14 @@ foreach { armfunc armflag armdefs } {
 	    return "$flags FLAG"
 	}
 
+        proc check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_link { } {
+	    return [check_no_compiler_messages arm_arch_FUNC_link executable {
+		#include <stdint.h>
+		int dummy;
+		int main (void) { return 0; }
+	    } [add_options_for_arm_arch_FUNC ""]]
+	}
+
 	proc check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_multilib { } {
 	    return [check_runtime arm_arch_FUNC_multilib {
 		int
@@ -5906,6 +5914,7 @@ proc add_options_for_arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon { flags } {
 #   arm_v8m_main_cde: Armv8-m CDE (Custom Datapath Extension).
 #   arm_v8m_main_cde_fp: Armv8-m CDE with FP registers.
 #   arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve: Armv8.1-m CDE with MVE.
+#   arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp: Armv8.1-m CDE with MVE with FP support.
 # Usage:
 #   /* { dg-require-effective-target arm_v8m_main_cde_ok } */
 #   /* { dg-add-options arm_v8m_main_cde } */
@@ -5965,6 +5974,24 @@ foreach { armfunc armflag armdef arminc } {
 	    return "$flags $et_FUNC_flags"
 	}
 
+        proc check_effective_target_FUNC_link { } {
+	    if { ! [check_effective_target_FUNC_ok] } {
+		return 0;
+	    }
+	    return [check_no_compiler_messages FUNC_link executable {
+		#if !(DEF)
+		#error "DEF failed"
+		#endif
+		#include <arm_cde.h>
+		INC
+		int
+		main (void)
+		{
+		    return 0;
+		}
+	    } [add_options_for_FUNC ""]]
+	}
+
 	proc check_effective_target_FUNC_multilib { } {
 	    if { ! [check_effective_target_FUNC_ok] } {
 		return 0;
-- 
2.34.1

RE: [PATCH] testsuite: Add _link flavor for several arm_arch* and arm* effective-targets

[Kyrylo Tkachov]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 8:52 AM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>;
> Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
> Cc: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> Subject: [PATCH] testsuite: Add _link flavor for several arm_arch* and arm*
> effective-targets
> 
> For arm targets, we generate many effective-targets with
> check_effective_target_FUNC_multilib and
> check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_multilib which check if we can
> link and execute a simple program with a given set of flags/multilibs.
> 
> In some cases however, it's possible to link but not to execute a
> program, so this patch adds similar _link effective-targets which only
> check if link succeeds.
> 
> The patch does not uupdate the documentation as it already lacks the
> numerous existing related effective-targets.

I think this looks ok but...

> 
> 2023-07-07  Christophe Lyon  <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> 
> 	gcc/testsuite/
> 	* lib/target-supports.exp (arm_*FUNC_link): New effective-targets.
> ---
>  gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-
> supports.exp
> index c04db2be7f9..d33bc077418 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> @@ -5129,6 +5129,14 @@ foreach { armfunc armflag armdefs } {
>  	    return "$flags FLAG"
>  	}
> 
> +        proc check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_link { } {
> +	    return [check_no_compiler_messages arm_arch_FUNC_link
> executable {
> +		#include <stdint.h>
> +		int dummy;
> +		int main (void) { return 0; }
> +	    } [add_options_for_arm_arch_FUNC ""]]
> +	}
> +
>  	proc check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_multilib { } {
>  	    return [check_runtime arm_arch_FUNC_multilib {
>  		int
> @@ -5906,6 +5914,7 @@ proc add_options_for_arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon {
> flags } {
>  #   arm_v8m_main_cde: Armv8-m CDE (Custom Datapath Extension).
>  #   arm_v8m_main_cde_fp: Armv8-m CDE with FP registers.
>  #   arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve: Armv8.1-m CDE with MVE.
> +#   arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp: Armv8.1-m CDE with MVE with FP
> support.
>  # Usage:
>  #   /* { dg-require-effective-target arm_v8m_main_cde_ok } */
>  #   /* { dg-add-options arm_v8m_main_cde } */
> @@ -5965,6 +5974,24 @@ foreach { armfunc armflag armdef arminc } {
>  	    return "$flags $et_FUNC_flags"
>  	}
> 
> +        proc check_effective_target_FUNC_link { } {
> +	    if { ! [check_effective_target_FUNC_ok] } {
> +		return 0;
> +	    }
> +	    return [check_no_compiler_messages FUNC_link executable {
> +		#if !(DEF)
> +		#error "DEF failed"
> +		#endif
> +		#include <arm_cde.h>

... why is arm_cde.h included here?

> +		INC
> +		int
> +		main (void)
> +		{
> +		    return 0;
> +		}
> +	    } [add_options_for_FUNC ""]]
> +	}
> +
>  	proc check_effective_target_FUNC_multilib { } {
>  	    if { ! [check_effective_target_FUNC_ok] } {
>  		return 0;
> --
> 2.34.1

RE: [PATCH] doc: Document arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp

[Kyrylo Tkachov]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 8:52 AM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>;
> Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
> Cc: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> Subject: [PATCH] doc: Document arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp
> 
> The arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp family of effective targets was not
> documented when it was introduced.
> 
> 2023-07-07  Christophe Lyon  <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> 
> 	gcc/
> 	* doc/sourcebuild.texi (arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp): Document.
> ---
>  gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
> index 526020c7511..03fb2394705 100644
> --- a/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
> +++ b/gcc/doc/sourcebuild.texi
> @@ -2190,6 +2190,12 @@ ARM target supports options to generate
> instructions from ARMv8.1-M with
>  the Custom Datapath Extension (CDE) and M-Profile Vector Extension (MVE).
>  Some multilibs may be incompatible with these options.
> 
> +@item arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp
> +ARM target supports options to generate instructions from ARMv8.1-M
> +with the Custom Datapath Extension (CDE) and M-Profile Vector
> +Extension (MVE) with floating-point support.  Some multilibs may be
> +incompatible with these options.

I know the GCC source is inconsistent on this but the proper branding these days is "ARM" -> "Arm" and "ARMv8.1-M" -> "Armv8.1-M".
Ok with those changes.
Thanks,
Kyrill

> +
>  @item arm_pacbti_hw
>  Test system supports executing Pointer Authentication and Branch Target
>  Identification instructions.
> --
> 2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Add _link flavor for several arm_arch* and arm* effective-targets

[Christophe Lyon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4003 bytes --]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 15:46, Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 8:52 AM
> > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>;
> > Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
> > Cc: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> > Subject: [PATCH] testsuite: Add _link flavor for several arm_arch* and
> arm*
> > effective-targets
> >
> > For arm targets, we generate many effective-targets with
> > check_effective_target_FUNC_multilib and
> > check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_multilib which check if we can
> > link and execute a simple program with a given set of flags/multilibs.
> >
> > In some cases however, it's possible to link but not to execute a
> > program, so this patch adds similar _link effective-targets which only
> > check if link succeeds.
> >
> > The patch does not uupdate the documentation as it already lacks the
> > numerous existing related effective-targets.
>
> I think this looks ok but...
>
> >
> > 2023-07-07  Christophe Lyon  <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> >
> >       gcc/testsuite/
> >       * lib/target-supports.exp (arm_*FUNC_link): New effective-targets.
> > ---
> >  gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-
> > supports.exp
> > index c04db2be7f9..d33bc077418 100644
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> > @@ -5129,6 +5129,14 @@ foreach { armfunc armflag armdefs } {
> >           return "$flags FLAG"
> >       }
> >
> > +        proc check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_link { } {
> > +         return [check_no_compiler_messages arm_arch_FUNC_link
> > executable {
> > +             #include <stdint.h>
> > +             int dummy;
> > +             int main (void) { return 0; }
> > +         } [add_options_for_arm_arch_FUNC ""]]
> > +     }
> > +
> >       proc check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_multilib { } {
> >           return [check_runtime arm_arch_FUNC_multilib {
> >               int
> > @@ -5906,6 +5914,7 @@ proc add_options_for_arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon {
> > flags } {
> >  #   arm_v8m_main_cde: Armv8-m CDE (Custom Datapath Extension).
> >  #   arm_v8m_main_cde_fp: Armv8-m CDE with FP registers.
> >  #   arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve: Armv8.1-m CDE with MVE.
> > +#   arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp: Armv8.1-m CDE with MVE with FP
> > support.
> >  # Usage:
> >  #   /* { dg-require-effective-target arm_v8m_main_cde_ok } */
> >  #   /* { dg-add-options arm_v8m_main_cde } */
> > @@ -5965,6 +5974,24 @@ foreach { armfunc armflag armdef arminc } {
> >           return "$flags $et_FUNC_flags"
> >       }
> >
> > +        proc check_effective_target_FUNC_link { } {
> > +         if { ! [check_effective_target_FUNC_ok] } {
> > +             return 0;
> > +         }
> > +         return [check_no_compiler_messages FUNC_link executable {
> > +             #if !(DEF)
> > +             #error "DEF failed"
> > +             #endif
> > +             #include <arm_cde.h>
>
> ... why is arm_cde.h included here?
>
> It's the very same code as  check_effective_target_FUNC_multilib below.

I think it's needed in case the toolchain's default configuration is not
able to support CDE. I believe these tests would fail if the toolchain
defaults
to -mfloat-abi=soft (the gnu/stubs-{soft|hard}.h "usual" error)

I added this chunk for consistency with the other one, it's not needed at
the moment.

Christophe



> +             INC
> > +             int
> > +             main (void)
> > +             {
> > +                 return 0;
> > +             }
> > +         } [add_options_for_FUNC ""]]
> > +     }
> > +
> >       proc check_effective_target_FUNC_multilib { } {
> >           if { ! [check_effective_target_FUNC_ok] } {
> >               return 0;
> > --
> > 2.34.1
>
>

RE: [PATCH] testsuite: Add _link flavor for several arm_arch* and arm* effective-targets

[Kyrylo Tkachov]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 2:59 PM
> To: Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Earnshaw
> <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] testsuite: Add _link flavor for several arm_arch* and
> arm* effective-targets
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 15:46, Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com
> <mailto:Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com> > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	> -----Original Message-----
> 	> From: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org
> <mailto:christophe.lyon@linaro.org> >
> 	> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 8:52 AM
> 	> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> ;
> Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com
> <mailto:Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com> >;
> 	> Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
> <mailto:Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com> >
> 	> Cc: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org
> <mailto:christophe.lyon@linaro.org> >
> 	> Subject: [PATCH] testsuite: Add _link flavor for several arm_arch*
> and arm*
> 	> effective-targets
> 	>
> 	> For arm targets, we generate many effective-targets with
> 	> check_effective_target_FUNC_multilib and
> 	> check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_multilib which check if we
> can
> 	> link and execute a simple program with a given set of
> flags/multilibs.
> 	>
> 	> In some cases however, it's possible to link but not to execute a
> 	> program, so this patch adds similar _link effective-targets which only
> 	> check if link succeeds.
> 	>
> 	> The patch does not uupdate the documentation as it already lacks
> the
> 	> numerous existing related effective-targets.
> 
> 	I think this looks ok but...
> 
> 	>
> 	> 2023-07-07  Christophe Lyon  <christophe.lyon@linaro.org
> <mailto:christophe.lyon@linaro.org> >
> 	>
> 	>       gcc/testsuite/
> 	>       * lib/target-supports.exp (arm_*FUNC_link): New effective-
> targets.
> 	> ---
> 	>  gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp | 27
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 	>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
> 	>
> 	> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-
> 	> supports.exp
> 	> index c04db2be7f9..d33bc077418 100644
> 	> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> 	> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> 	> @@ -5129,6 +5129,14 @@ foreach { armfunc armflag armdefs } {
> 	>           return "$flags FLAG"
> 	>       }
> 	>
> 	> +        proc check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_link { } {
> 	> +         return [check_no_compiler_messages arm_arch_FUNC_link
> 	> executable {
> 	> +             #include <stdint.h>
> 	> +             int dummy;
> 	> +             int main (void) { return 0; }
> 	> +         } [add_options_for_arm_arch_FUNC ""]]
> 	> +     }
> 	> +
> 	>       proc check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_multilib { } {
> 	>           return [check_runtime arm_arch_FUNC_multilib {
> 	>               int
> 	> @@ -5906,6 +5914,7 @@ proc
> add_options_for_arm_v8_2a_bf16_neon {
> 	> flags } {
> 	>  #   arm_v8m_main_cde: Armv8-m CDE (Custom Datapath
> Extension).
> 	>  #   arm_v8m_main_cde_fp: Armv8-m CDE with FP registers.
> 	>  #   arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve: Armv8.1-m CDE with MVE.
> 	> +#   arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp: Armv8.1-m CDE with MVE with
> FP
> 	> support.
> 	>  # Usage:
> 	>  #   /* { dg-require-effective-target arm_v8m_main_cde_ok } */
> 	>  #   /* { dg-add-options arm_v8m_main_cde } */
> 	> @@ -5965,6 +5974,24 @@ foreach { armfunc armflag armdef
> arminc } {
> 	>           return "$flags $et_FUNC_flags"
> 	>       }
> 	>
> 	> +        proc check_effective_target_FUNC_link { } {
> 	> +         if { ! [check_effective_target_FUNC_ok] } {
> 	> +             return 0;
> 	> +         }
> 	> +         return [check_no_compiler_messages FUNC_link executable {
> 	> +             #if !(DEF)
> 	> +             #error "DEF failed"
> 	> +             #endif
> 	> +             #include <arm_cde.h>
> 
> 	... why is arm_cde.h included here?
> 
> 
> 
> It's the very same code as  check_effective_target_FUNC_multilib below.
> 
> I think it's needed in case the toolchain's default configuration is not
> able to support CDE. I believe these tests would fail if the toolchain defaults
> to -mfloat-abi=soft (the gnu/stubs-{soft|hard}.h "usual" error)
> 
> I added this chunk for consistency with the other one, it's not needed at the
> moment.

Ah, this is a CDE-specific region. I couldn't tell from the default diff context, but having looked at the code around it, it makes sense.
Ok.
Thanks,
Kyrill

> 
> Christophe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	> +             INC
> 	> +             int
> 	> +             main (void)
> 	> +             {
> 	> +                 return 0;
> 	> +             }
> 	> +         } [add_options_for_FUNC ""]]
> 	> +     }
> 	> +
> 	>       proc check_effective_target_FUNC_multilib { } {
> 	>           if { ! [check_effective_target_FUNC_ok] } {
> 	>               return 0;
> 	> --
> 	> 2.34.1
> 
> 

Arm branding (was: [PATCH] doc: Document arm_v8_1m_main_cde_mve_fp)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I know the GCC source is inconsistent on this but the proper branding 
> these days is "ARM" -> "Arm" and "ARMv8.1-M" -> "Armv8.1-M".

Arm, Red Hat, and SUSE - those three are spelt incorrectly by third 
parties more often than not, it seems. :-(

Is it always Arm now in every context and meaning (outside target 
triplets)?

If so, I'll add a line to our table in codingconventions.html?
If not, can you explain the specifics?

Gerald