From: "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com>
To: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: s390 port
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 18:15:44 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <F708770A0AAC4F9EB80CC0B873BF712F@DESKTOP0OKG1VA> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200906051520.n55FKg7T016481@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>
Hi Ulrich.
Sorry for the necro - things happen slowly Down Under. :-)
Anyway, I am helping someone with their public domain
project, UDOS - https://github.com/udos-project/udos
(just a hobby, won't be big and professional like Linux)
We got the IPL process in place on ESA/390, and then
I decided that the next thing to do would be to switch
to z/Arch so that we could get rid of the AMODE 31
architectural limit on 32-bit programs.
It all worked fine, and we were able to use GCC 11 to
target S/390 and use the -m31 to generate 32-bit code,
run it under z/Arch as AM64, sort of making it the
equivalent of AM32. Really it is the equivalent of
AM-infinity, and there's the rub - GCC 11 is generating
negative indexes, which cause memory above 4 GiB
to be accessed (instead of wrapping at 2/4 GiB), which
of course fails.
Do you have any idea how to stop the S/390 target
from generating negative indexes? I thought the
solution might be to change the Pmode to DImode
even for non-TARGET64, but as you can see here:
http://www.pdos.org/gccfail.png
we got an internal compile error - maximum number
of generated reload insns per insn achieved (90).
I then tried changing the other SImode reference
(CASE_VECTOR_MODE) to DImode too, but that gave
the same internal error.
Here is what the failure looks like (see the large R4):
01:28:27 PSW=00042001 80000000 0000000000005870 INST=A73A0001 AHI 3,1
add_halfword_immediate
01:28:27 R0=00000000000001FD R1=00000000000000E2 R2=000000000009E579
R3=00000000000080B2
01:28:27 R4=00000000FFFFF000 R5=000000000001E5C8 R6=0000000000007FFF
R7=0000000000002000
01:28:27 R8=000000000000201F R9=0000000000000000 RA=00000000000080B0
RB=00000000000080B2
01:28:27 RC=000000000009E580 RD=0000000000008138 RE=0000000000007B4C
RF=000000000001E4E4
01:28:27 PSW=00042001 80000000 0000000000005874 INST=42142FFF STC
1,4095(4,2) store_character
01:28:27 R:000000010009E578: Translation exception 0005
01:28:27 R0=00000000000001FD R1=00000000000000E2 R2=000000000009E579
R3=00000000000080B3
01:28:27 R4=00000000FFFFF000 R5=000000000001E5C8 R6=0000000000007FFF
R7=0000000000002000
01:28:27 R8=000000000000201F R9=0000000000000000 RA=00000000000080B0
RB=00000000000080B2
01:28:27 RC=000000000009E580 RD=0000000000008138 RE=0000000000007B4C
RF=000000000001E4E4
01:28:27 HHCCP014I CPU0000: Addressing exception CODE=0005 ILC=4
01:28:27 PSW=00042001 80000000 0000000000005878 INST=42142FFF STC
1,4095(4,2) store_character
01:28:27 R:000000010009E578: Translation exception 0005
01:28:27 R0=00000000000001FD R1=00000000000000E2 R2=000000000009E579
R3=00000000000080B3
01:28:27 R4=00000000FFFFF000 R5=000000000001E5C8 R6=0000000000007FFF
R7=0000000000002000
01:28:27 R8=000000000000201F R9=0000000000000000 RA=00000000000080B0
RB=00000000000080B2
01:28:27 RC=000000000009E580 RD=0000000000008138 RE=0000000000007B4C
RF=000000000001E4E4
01:28:27 HHCCP043I Wait state PSW loaded: PSW=00060001 80000000
0000000000000444
01:28:40 quit
01:28:40 HHCIN900I Begin Hercules shutdown
Any idea what we can do?
Thanks. Paul.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ulrich Weigand
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2009 1:20 AM
To: Paul Edwards
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: i370 port
Paul Edwards wrote:
> In addition, that code has been ported to GCC 3.4.6, which is now
> working as a cross-compiler at least. It's still some months away
> from working natively though. It takes a lot of effort to convert
> the Posix-expecting GCC compiler into C90 compliance. This has
> been done though, in a way that has minimal code changes to the
> GCC mainline.
You're referring to building GCC for a non-Posix *host*, right?
I assume those changes are not (primarily) in the back-end, but
throughout GCC common code?
> Yes, I'm aware that there is an S/390 port, but it isn't EBCDIC, isn't
> HLASM, isn't 370, isn't C90, isn't MVS. It may well be possible to
> change all those things, and I suspect that in a few years from now
> I may be sending another message asking what I need to do to get
> all my changes to the s390 target into the s390 target. At that time,
> I suspect there will be a lot of objection to "polluting" the s390 target
> with all those "unnecessary" things.
Actually, I would really like to see the s390 target optionally support
the MVS ABI and HLASM assembler format, so I wouldn't have any objection
to patches that add these features ...
I understand current GCC supports various source and target character
sets a lot better out of the box, so it may be EBCDIC isn't even an
issue any more. If there are other problems related to MVS host
support, I suppose those would need to be fixed in common code anyway,
no matter whether the s390 or i370 back-ends are used.
The only point in your list I'm sceptical about is 370 architecture
support -- I don't quite see why this is still useful today (the s390
port does require at a minimum a S/390 G2 with the branch relative
instructions ... but those have been around for nearly 15 years).
Bye,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-02 8:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-05 12:45 i370 port Paul Edwards
2009-06-05 14:33 ` Joseph S. Myers
2009-06-05 14:57 ` Paul Edwards
2009-06-05 15:03 ` Joseph S. Myers
2009-06-05 15:24 ` Paul Edwards
2009-06-05 15:47 ` Joseph S. Myers
2009-09-11 17:35 ` i370 port - in search of hooks Paul Edwards
2017-03-31 10:34 ` i370 port Paul Edwards
2009-09-12 12:41 ` Paul Edwards
2009-06-05 15:21 ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-06-05 15:39 ` Paul Edwards
2009-06-05 15:49 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2009-06-05 15:57 ` Paul Edwards
2009-06-05 20:20 ` Joseph S. Myers
2009-06-05 20:45 ` Paul Edwards
2009-06-06 15:00 ` Paul Edwards
2009-06-15 17:46 ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-06-19 0:06 ` Paul Edwards
2009-06-19 12:28 ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-07-18 11:28 ` Paul Edwards
2009-07-20 14:27 ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-08-08 12:04 ` Paul Edwards
2009-08-10 21:25 ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-08-11 0:34 ` Paul Edwards
2009-08-11 15:21 ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-08-12 11:52 ` Paul Edwards
2009-08-12 15:27 ` Paolo Bonzini
2009-08-12 16:35 ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-08-12 17:27 ` Paul Edwards
2009-08-12 17:56 ` Paolo Bonzini
2009-08-12 19:46 ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-08-12 20:31 ` Paul Edwards
2009-08-19 12:07 ` Paul Edwards
2009-08-19 12:27 ` Paolo Bonzini
2009-08-20 12:49 ` Paul Edwards
2009-08-20 22:48 ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-08-21 2:37 ` Paul Edwards
2009-08-21 16:46 ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-06-05 15:44 ` Joseph S. Myers
2009-06-05 15:52 ` Paul Edwards
2009-09-08 15:55 ` Paul Edwards
2009-09-14 15:32 ` Ulrich Weigand
2021-09-02 8:15 ` Paul Edwards [this message]
2021-09-02 14:34 ` s390 port Ulrich Weigand
2021-09-02 14:50 ` Paul Edwards
2021-09-02 14:53 ` Ulrich Weigand
2021-09-02 15:01 ` Paul Edwards
2021-09-02 15:13 ` Ulrich Weigand
2021-09-02 15:26 ` Paul Edwards
2021-09-02 19:46 ` Ulrich Weigand
2021-09-02 20:05 ` Paul Edwards
2021-09-02 20:16 ` Andreas Schwab
2021-09-03 11:18 ` Ulrich Weigand
2021-09-03 11:35 ` Paul Edwards
2021-09-03 12:12 ` Ulrich Weigand
2021-09-03 12:38 ` Paul Edwards
2021-09-03 12:53 ` Jakub Jelinek
2021-09-03 13:12 ` Paul Edwards
2022-12-20 4:27 ` Paul Edwards
2021-09-02 10:56 Paul Edwards
2021-09-06 22:44 Build gcc question Gary Oblock
2021-09-07 7:21 ` s390 port Joe Monk
2021-09-08 3:46 ` Paul Edwards
2021-09-30 0:08 Paul Edwards
2021-09-30 0:59 ` Joe Monk
2021-09-30 21:39 Paul Edwards
2023-01-28 18:51 Paul Edwards
2023-01-29 13:08 ` Joe Monk
2023-01-29 14:30 ` Paul Edwards
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=F708770A0AAC4F9EB80CC0B873BF712F@DESKTOP0OKG1VA \
--to=mutazilah@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=uweigand@de.ibm.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).