From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
Cc: jlaw@ventanamicro.com, libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] build-many-glibcs: Add a RISC-V config with most of the B extensions
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2023 17:50:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a5ty9e3q.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mhng-1d856e92-2417-4964-adc0-b123034a7657@palmer-ri-x1c9> (Palmer Dabbelt's message of "Thu, 07 Sep 2023 08:24:34 -0700 (PDT)")
* Palmer Dabbelt:
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 13:43:08 PDT (-0700), fweimer@redhat.com wrote:
>> * Palmer Dabbelt:
>>
>>> + self.add_config(arch='riscv64',
>>> + os_name='linux-gnu',
>>> + variant='rv64imafdcb-lp64d',
>>> + gcc_cfg=['--with-arch=rv64imafdc_zba_zbb_zbs', '--with-abi=lp64d',
>>> + '--disable-multilib'])
>>
>> I doubt we need a separate GCC configuration, you should be able to use
>> the existing compiler for that and just change the glibc build flags.
>
> Right now we're building a different GCC for each target, setting the
> default arch at GCC configure time. I agree that's super inefficient,
> but it's what the other tagets do. Sharing GCCs will also result in
> mixing up things like libgcc, which is kind of a double-edged sword.
It's more mixed, see the power4 variant of powerpc-linux-gnu for an
example.
>> I expect we need some sort of version check because these flags are
>> rather recent, right? To what extend do they actually impact code
>> generation for glibc?
>
> We've got two inline asm routines that use the B extensions (both Zbb):
>
> sysdeps/riscv/string-fza.h:#if defined __riscv_zbb || defined __riscv_xtheadbb
> sysdeps/riscv/string-fzi.h:#if defined __riscv_zbb || defined __riscv_xtheadbb
>
> That's a pretty small diff, but it is code we're not testing -- not
> sure if that's worth a whole test config, though.
You can add IFUNCs and compile the affected string functions twice, then
code *will* be compiled in a default build, revealing syntax and other
errors.
> On the compiler side the B extensions have a pretty big impact on
> codegen: they add a bunch of common bit manipulation patterns
> (sign/zero extension, bit fields, C strings, etc). None of that
> should change the ABI, so in theory we should be safe if the GCC test
> suite passes. We do glibc builds as part of the GCC testing, but that
> usually targets released glibc versions so stuff might slip through.
Do the B extensions change the relocation footprint because they add new
instruction encodes? That's an area where we've sometimes encountered
problems with changes in ISA baselines/compiler flags.
Thanks,
Florian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-07 15:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-06 15:06 Palmer Dabbelt
2023-09-06 20:43 ` Florian Weimer
2023-09-07 15:24 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2023-09-07 15:50 ` Florian Weimer [this message]
2023-09-07 16:39 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2023-09-07 17:00 ` Evan Green
2023-09-07 17:05 ` Palmer Dabbelt
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=87a5ty9e3q.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com \
--to=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=jlaw@ventanamicro.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=palmer@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).