From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.loongson.cn (mail.loongson.cn [114.242.206.163]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6433858C2D for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2023 10:00:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 8F6433858C2D Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=loongson.cn Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=loongson.cn Received: from loongson.cn (unknown [111.9.175.10]) by gateway (Coremail) with SMTP id _____8DxPOtLzMxk3hsQAA--.32035S3; Fri, 04 Aug 2023 18:00:43 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.136.15.11] (unknown [111.9.175.10]) by localhost.localdomain (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf8BxXSNJzMxkVB5IAA--.35800S3; Fri, 04 Aug 2023 18:00:42 +0800 (CST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Loongarch: Add ifunc support and add different versions of strlen To: Adhemerval Zanella Netto , caiyinyu , libc-alpha@sourceware.org Cc: xry111@xry111.site, xuchenghua@loongson.cn, huangpei@loongson.cn References: <20230801070902.1385953-1-dengjianbo@loongson.cn> <20230801070902.1385953-3-dengjianbo@loongson.cn> <8367cd72-e458-7a1c-63af-01280d8ccc7a@linaro.org> <60b7843c-a32c-a1b5-ffc1-1ad769fb2d57@linaro.org> <2aed2087-c44e-8fed-83d1-5e60343c8f47@linaro.org> From: dengjianbo Message-ID: <0a9af860-e520-625c-987a-34e49c695c71@loongson.cn> Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 18:00:40 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux loongarch64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2aed2087-c44e-8fed-83d1-5e60343c8f47@linaro.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------3684E9341D4644943C8D15DC" Content-Language: en-US X-CM-TRANSID:AQAAf8BxXSNJzMxkVB5IAA--.35800S3 X-CM-SenderInfo: pghqwyxldqu0o6or00hjvr0hdfq/ X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uk129KBj93XoW7WF4Dtr45AF4fXF1UGF4fXrc_yoW8Xr4Dpw 1vvFsxJF4kG34xKw1vkasxX3s5trWfKrZrWr1Ykryjkr48XrnYqrySkr9IkF1DAw18G34j vr409r1Fka4DZ3gCm3ZEXasCq-sJn29KB7ZKAUJUUUUU529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7KY7ZEXa sCq-sGcSsGvfJ3UbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy29KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUv0b4IE77IF4wAF F20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r 106r15M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwA2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAF wI0_Gr0_Xr1l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Cr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67 AKxVW8Jr0_Cr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW8Jr0_Cr1UM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq 07x20xvEncxIr21l57IF6xkI12xvs2x26I8E6xACxx1lYx0E2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_Jr 4lYx0Ex4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMcvjeVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwACjcxG0xvEwIxGrwCj r7xvwVCIw2I0I7xG6c02F41lc7I2V7IY0VAS07AlzVAYIcxG8wCF04k20xvY0x0EwIxGrw CFx2IqxVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwC20s026c02F40E14v26r106r1rMI8I3I0E7480Y4vE 14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_JF0_Jw1lIxkGc2Ij64vIr41lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2 IY67AKxVWUCVW8JwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lIxAIcVCF04k26cxK x2IYs7xG6r1j6r1xMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI 0_Jr0_GrUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IU1Au4UUUUUU== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3684E9341D4644943C8D15DC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2023-08-03 21:48, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote: >>>>>> This implementation fails to assembler with binutils 2.40.0.20230525: >>>>>> ../sysdeps/loongarch/lp64/multiarch/strlen-lsx.S: Assembler messages: >>>>>> ../sysdeps/loongarch/lp64/multiarch/strlen-lsx.S:30: Error: no match insn: vld  $vr0,$r4,0 >>>>>> ../sysdeps/loongarch/lp64/multiarch/strlen-lsx.S:31: Error: no match insn: vld  $vr1,$r4,16 >>>>>> >>>> Sorry, it's my mistake for the wrong version of binutils. Could you please try the latest release >>>> version 2.41? >>> Although it should work, it is unexpected that depending of the assembler used >>> some optimized routines are not enabled. >> In patch v2, an new configuration variable has been added to control >> whether the LASX/LSX will be compiled according to assembler support >> LASX/LSX or not, so it can be compiled with old versions of binutils. > Yes I am aware and this seems odd, albeit not really wrong. It means that > you will get less code coverage and optimizations depending of the used > binutils. > > I would advise to follow what other architecture did to provide arch-specific > optimization, which is either setup a minimum gcc/binutils version (for > instance aarch64 libmvec), or encode the instructions in a binutils neutral > mode (as the powerpc implementation I pointed out). we have setup a minimun binutils version in patch v3, please kindly find via: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2023-August/150670.html --------------3684E9341D4644943C8D15DC--