| Message ID | 20240612232026.41780-1-patrick@rivosinc.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | RISC-V: Add configure check for Zaamo/Zalrsc assembler support | expand |
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:20:26 PDT (-0700), Patrick O'Neill wrote: > Binutils 2.42 and before don't support Zaamo/Zalrsc. Add a configure > check to prevent emitting Zaamo/Zalrsc in the arch string when the > assember does not support it. Should we just rewrite these to A when binutils doesn't support the subsets? That'd avoid a forced binutils bump, but really user should be upgrading anyway... Either way Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V though I'm not suer if the configure churn is sane, it looks like a version mismatch of some sort. Hopefully someone who knows those bits better can chime in? > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc > (riscv_subset_list::to_string): Skip zaamo/zalrsc when not > supported by the assembler. > * config.in: Regenerate. > * configure: Regenerate. > * configure.ac: Add zaamo/zalrsc assmeber check. > > Signed-off-by: Patrick O'Neill <patrick@rivosinc.com> > --- > Tested using newlib rv64gc with binutils tip-of-tree and 2.42. > > This results in calls being emitted when compiling for _zaamo_zalrsc > when the assember does not support these extensions. > >> cat amo.c > void foo (int* bar, int* baz) > { > __atomic_add_fetch(bar, baz, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); > } >> gcc -march=rv64id_zaamo_zalrsc -O3 amo.c > results in: > foo: > sext.w a1,a1 > li a2,0 > tail __atomic_fetch_add_4 > > As a result there are some testsuite failures on zalrsc specific > testcases and when using an old version of binutils on non-a targets. > Not a cause for concern imo but worth calling out. > Also testcases that check for the default isa string will fail with > the old binutils since zaamo/zalrsc aren't emitted anymore. > --- > gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc | 11 +++++++ > gcc/config.in | 6 ++++ > gcc/configure | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++--- > gcc/configure.ac | 5 +++ > 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc > index 78dfd6b1470..1dc1d9904c7 100644 > --- a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc > +++ b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc > @@ -916,6 +916,7 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const > riscv_subset_t *subset; > > bool skip_zifencei = false; > + bool skip_zaamo_zalrsc = false; > bool skip_zicsr = false; > bool i2p0 = false; > > @@ -943,6 +944,10 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const > a mistake in that binutils 2.35 supports zicsr but not zifencei. */ > skip_zifencei = true; > #endif > +#ifndef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC > + /* Skip since binutils 2.42 and earlier don't recognize zaamo/zalrsc. */ > + skip_zaamo_zalrsc = true; > +#endif > > for (subset = m_head; subset != NULL; subset = subset->next) > { > @@ -954,6 +959,12 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const > subset->name == "zicsr") > continue; > > + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zaamo") > + continue; > + > + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zalrsc") > + continue; > + > /* For !version_p, we only separate extension with underline for > multi-letter extension. */ > if (!first && > diff --git a/gcc/config.in b/gcc/config.in > index e41b6dc97cd..acab3c0f126 100644 > --- a/gcc/config.in > +++ b/gcc/config.in > @@ -629,6 +629,12 @@ > #endif > > > +/* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc. */ > +#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET > +#undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC > +#endif > + > + > /* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei. */ > #ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET > #undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI > diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure > index aaf5899cc03..09b794c1225 100755 > --- a/gcc/configure > +++ b/gcc/configure > @@ -6228,7 +6228,7 @@ else > We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, > since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers > incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ > -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) > +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) > int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 > && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) > ? 1 : -1]; > @@ -6274,7 +6274,7 @@ else > We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, > since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers > incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ > -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) > +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) > int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 > && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) > ? 1 : -1]; > @@ -6298,7 +6298,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext > We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, > since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers > incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ > -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) > +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) > int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 > && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) > ? 1 : -1]; > @@ -6343,7 +6343,7 @@ else > We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, > since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers > incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ > -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) > +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) > int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 > && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) > ? 1 : -1]; > @@ -6367,7 +6367,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext > We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, > since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers > incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ > -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) > +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) > int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 > && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) > ? 1 : -1]; > @@ -30820,6 +30820,37 @@ if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zifencei = yes; then > > $as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI 1" >>confdefs.h > > +fi > + > + { $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support" >&5 > +$as_echo_n "checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support... " >&6; } > +if ${gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc+:} false; then : > + $as_echo_n "(cached) " >&6 > +else > + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=no > + if test x$gcc_cv_as != x; then > + $as_echo '' > conftest.s > + if { ac_try='$gcc_cv_as $gcc_cv_as_flags -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc -o conftest.o conftest.s >&5' > + { { eval echo "\"\$as_me\":${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \"$ac_try\""; } >&5 > + (eval $ac_try) 2>&5 > + ac_status=$? > + $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \$? = $ac_status" >&5 > + test $ac_status = 0; }; } > + then > + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=yes > + else > + echo "configure: failed program was" >&5 > + cat conftest.s >&5 > + fi > + rm -f conftest.o conftest.s > + fi > +fi > +{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&5 > +$as_echo "$gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&6; } > +if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc = yes; then > + > +$as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC 1" >>confdefs.h > + > fi > > ;; > diff --git a/gcc/configure.ac b/gcc/configure.ac > index f8d67efeb98..c54748cd9aa 100644 > --- a/gcc/configure.ac > +++ b/gcc/configure.ac > @@ -5452,6 +5452,11 @@ configured with --enable-newlib-nano-formatted-io.]) > [-march=rv32i_zifencei2p0],,, > [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI, 1, > [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei.])]) > + gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support], > + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc, > + [-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc],,, > + [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC, 1, > + [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc.])]) > ;; > loongarch*-*-*) > gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([.dtprelword support],
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> writes: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:20:26 PDT (-0700), Patrick O'Neill wrote: >> Binutils 2.42 and before don't support Zaamo/Zalrsc. Add a configure >> check to prevent emitting Zaamo/Zalrsc in the arch string when the >> assember does not support it. > > Should we just rewrite these to A when binutils doesn't support the > subsets? That'd avoid a forced binutils bump, but really user should > be upgrading anyway... Either way > > Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V > Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V > > though I'm not suer if the configure churn is sane, it looks like a > version mismatch of some sort. Hopefully someone who knows those bits > better can chime in? Your instinct is right! > >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >> (riscv_subset_list::to_string): Skip zaamo/zalrsc when not >> supported by the assembler. >> * config.in: Regenerate. >> * configure: Regenerate. >> * configure.ac: Add zaamo/zalrsc assmeber check. >> >> Signed-off-by: Patrick O'Neill <patrick@rivosinc.com> >> --- >> Tested using newlib rv64gc with binutils tip-of-tree and 2.42. >> >> This results in calls being emitted when compiling for _zaamo_zalrsc >> when the assember does not support these extensions. >> >>> cat amo.c >> void foo (int* bar, int* baz) >> { >> __atomic_add_fetch(bar, baz, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); >> } >>> gcc -march=rv64id_zaamo_zalrsc -O3 amo.c >> results in: >> foo: >> sext.w a1,a1 >> li a2,0 >> tail __atomic_fetch_add_4 >> >> As a result there are some testsuite failures on zalrsc specific >> testcases and when using an old version of binutils on non-a targets. >> Not a cause for concern imo but worth calling out. >> Also testcases that check for the default isa string will fail with >> the old binutils since zaamo/zalrsc aren't emitted anymore. >> --- >> gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc | 11 +++++++ >> gcc/config.in | 6 ++++ >> gcc/configure | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++--- >> gcc/configure.ac | 5 +++ >> 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >> index 78dfd6b1470..1dc1d9904c7 100644 >> --- a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >> +++ b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >> @@ -916,6 +916,7 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const >> riscv_subset_t *subset; >> >> bool skip_zifencei = false; >> + bool skip_zaamo_zalrsc = false; >> bool skip_zicsr = false; >> bool i2p0 = false; >> >> @@ -943,6 +944,10 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const >> a mistake in that binutils 2.35 supports zicsr but not zifencei. */ >> skip_zifencei = true; >> #endif >> +#ifndef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC >> + /* Skip since binutils 2.42 and earlier don't recognize zaamo/zalrsc. */ >> + skip_zaamo_zalrsc = true; >> +#endif >> >> for (subset = m_head; subset != NULL; subset = subset->next) >> { >> @@ -954,6 +959,12 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const >> subset->name == "zicsr") >> continue; >> >> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zaamo") >> + continue; >> + >> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zalrsc") >> + continue; >> + >> /* For !version_p, we only separate extension with underline for >> multi-letter extension. */ >> if (!first && >> diff --git a/gcc/config.in b/gcc/config.in >> index e41b6dc97cd..acab3c0f126 100644 >> --- a/gcc/config.in >> +++ b/gcc/config.in >> @@ -629,6 +629,12 @@ >> #endif >> >> >> +/* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc. */ >> +#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET >> +#undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC >> +#endif >> + >> + >> /* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei. */ >> #ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET >> #undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI >> diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure >> index aaf5899cc03..09b794c1225 100755 >> --- a/gcc/configure >> +++ b/gcc/configure >> @@ -6228,7 +6228,7 @@ else >> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 I think you may be using patched autoconf which fixes http://bugs.debian.org/742780. The fix landed in 2.70: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=commit;h=a1d8293f3bfa2516f9a0424e3a6e63c2f8e93c6e. Please drop those hunks. >> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >> ? 1 : -1]; >> @@ -6274,7 +6274,7 @@ else >> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >> ? 1 : -1]; >> @@ -6298,7 +6298,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext >> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >> ? 1 : -1]; >> @@ -6343,7 +6343,7 @@ else >> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >> ? 1 : -1]; >> @@ -6367,7 +6367,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext >> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >> ? 1 : -1]; >> @@ -30820,6 +30820,37 @@ if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zifencei = yes; then >> >> $as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI 1" >>confdefs.h >> >> +fi >> + >> + { $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support" >&5 >> +$as_echo_n "checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support... " >&6; } >> +if ${gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc+:} false; then : >> + $as_echo_n "(cached) " >&6 >> +else >> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=no >> + if test x$gcc_cv_as != x; then >> + $as_echo '' > conftest.s >> + if { ac_try='$gcc_cv_as $gcc_cv_as_flags -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc -o conftest.o conftest.s >&5' >> + { { eval echo "\"\$as_me\":${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \"$ac_try\""; } >&5 >> + (eval $ac_try) 2>&5 >> + ac_status=$? >> + $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \$? = $ac_status" >&5 >> + test $ac_status = 0; }; } >> + then >> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=yes >> + else >> + echo "configure: failed program was" >&5 >> + cat conftest.s >&5 >> + fi >> + rm -f conftest.o conftest.s >> + fi >> +fi >> +{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&5 >> +$as_echo "$gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&6; } >> +if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc = yes; then >> + >> +$as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC 1" >>confdefs.h >> + >> fi >> >> ;; >> diff --git a/gcc/configure.ac b/gcc/configure.ac >> index f8d67efeb98..c54748cd9aa 100644 >> --- a/gcc/configure.ac >> +++ b/gcc/configure.ac >> @@ -5452,6 +5452,11 @@ configured with --enable-newlib-nano-formatted-io.]) >> [-march=rv32i_zifencei2p0],,, >> [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI, 1, >> [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei.])]) >> + gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support], >> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc, >> + [-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc],,, >> + [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC, 1, >> + [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc.])]) >> ;; >> loongarch*-*-*) >> gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([.dtprelword support],
On 6/12/24 16:49, Sam James wrote: > Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> writes: > >> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:20:26 PDT (-0700), Patrick O'Neill wrote: >>> Binutils 2.42 and before don't support Zaamo/Zalrsc. Add a configure >>> check to prevent emitting Zaamo/Zalrsc in the arch string when the >>> assember does not support it. >> Should we just rewrite these to A when binutils doesn't support the >> subsets? That'd avoid a forced binutils bump, but really user should >> be upgrading anyway... Either way >> >> Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V >> Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V >> >> though I'm not suer if the configure churn is sane, it looks like a >> version mismatch of some sort. Hopefully someone who knows those bits >> better can chime in? > Your instinct is right! > >>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>> >>> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >>> (riscv_subset_list::to_string): Skip zaamo/zalrsc when not >>> supported by the assembler. >>> * config.in: Regenerate. >>> * configure: Regenerate. >>> * configure.ac: Add zaamo/zalrsc assmeber check. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Patrick O'Neill <patrick@rivosinc.com> >>> --- >>> Tested using newlib rv64gc with binutils tip-of-tree and 2.42. >>> >>> This results in calls being emitted when compiling for _zaamo_zalrsc >>> when the assember does not support these extensions. >>> >>>> cat amo.c >>> void foo (int* bar, int* baz) >>> { >>> __atomic_add_fetch(bar, baz, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); >>> } >>>> gcc -march=rv64id_zaamo_zalrsc -O3 amo.c >>> results in: >>> foo: >>> sext.w a1,a1 >>> li a2,0 >>> tail __atomic_fetch_add_4 >>> >>> As a result there are some testsuite failures on zalrsc specific >>> testcases and when using an old version of binutils on non-a targets. >>> Not a cause for concern imo but worth calling out. >>> Also testcases that check for the default isa string will fail with >>> the old binutils since zaamo/zalrsc aren't emitted anymore. >>> --- >>> gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc | 11 +++++++ >>> gcc/config.in | 6 ++++ >>> gcc/configure | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++--- >>> gcc/configure.ac | 5 +++ >>> 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >>> index 78dfd6b1470..1dc1d9904c7 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >>> +++ b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >>> @@ -916,6 +916,7 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const >>> riscv_subset_t *subset; >>> >>> bool skip_zifencei = false; >>> + bool skip_zaamo_zalrsc = false; >>> bool skip_zicsr = false; >>> bool i2p0 = false; >>> >>> @@ -943,6 +944,10 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const >>> a mistake in that binutils 2.35 supports zicsr but not zifencei. */ >>> skip_zifencei = true; >>> #endif >>> +#ifndef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC >>> + /* Skip since binutils 2.42 and earlier don't recognize zaamo/zalrsc. */ >>> + skip_zaamo_zalrsc = true; >>> +#endif >>> >>> for (subset = m_head; subset != NULL; subset = subset->next) >>> { >>> @@ -954,6 +959,12 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const >>> subset->name == "zicsr") >>> continue; >>> >>> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zaamo") >>> + continue; >>> + >>> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zalrsc") >>> + continue; >>> + >>> /* For !version_p, we only separate extension with underline for >>> multi-letter extension. */ >>> if (!first && >>> diff --git a/gcc/config.in b/gcc/config.in >>> index e41b6dc97cd..acab3c0f126 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/config.in >>> +++ b/gcc/config.in >>> @@ -629,6 +629,12 @@ >>> #endif >>> >>> >>> +/* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc. */ >>> +#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET >>> +#undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC >>> +#endif >>> + >>> + >>> /* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei. */ >>> #ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET >>> #undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI >>> diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure >>> index aaf5899cc03..09b794c1225 100755 >>> --- a/gcc/configure >>> +++ b/gcc/configure >>> @@ -6228,7 +6228,7 @@ else >>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 > I think you may be using patched autoconf which fixes > http://bugs.debian.org/742780. > > The fix landed in 2.70: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=commit;h=a1d8293f3bfa2516f9a0424e3a6e63c2f8e93c6e. > > Please drop those hunks. I thought I could get away with using the apt autoconf2.69 package directly ;) Thanks. I'll regenerate without those hunks for v2. Patrick > > >>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >>> ? 1 : -1]; >>> @@ -6274,7 +6274,7 @@ else >>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >>> ? 1 : -1]; >>> @@ -6298,7 +6298,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext >>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >>> ? 1 : -1]; >>> @@ -6343,7 +6343,7 @@ else >>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >>> ? 1 : -1]; >>> @@ -6367,7 +6367,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext >>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >>> ? 1 : -1]; >>> @@ -30820,6 +30820,37 @@ if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zifencei = yes; then >>> >>> $as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI 1" >>confdefs.h >>> >>> +fi >>> + >>> + { $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support" >&5 >>> +$as_echo_n "checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support... " >&6; } >>> +if ${gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc+:} false; then : >>> + $as_echo_n "(cached) " >&6 >>> +else >>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=no >>> + if test x$gcc_cv_as != x; then >>> + $as_echo '' > conftest.s >>> + if { ac_try='$gcc_cv_as $gcc_cv_as_flags -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc -o conftest.o conftest.s >&5' >>> + { { eval echo "\"\$as_me\":${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \"$ac_try\""; } >&5 >>> + (eval $ac_try) 2>&5 >>> + ac_status=$? >>> + $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \$? = $ac_status" >&5 >>> + test $ac_status = 0; }; } >>> + then >>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=yes >>> + else >>> + echo "configure: failed program was" >&5 >>> + cat conftest.s >&5 >>> + fi >>> + rm -f conftest.o conftest.s >>> + fi >>> +fi >>> +{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&5 >>> +$as_echo "$gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&6; } >>> +if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc = yes; then >>> + >>> +$as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC 1" >>confdefs.h >>> + >>> fi >>> >>> ;; >>> diff --git a/gcc/configure.ac b/gcc/configure.ac >>> index f8d67efeb98..c54748cd9aa 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/configure.ac >>> +++ b/gcc/configure.ac >>> @@ -5452,6 +5452,11 @@ configured with --enable-newlib-nano-formatted-io.]) >>> [-march=rv32i_zifencei2p0],,, >>> [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI, 1, >>> [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei.])]) >>> + gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support], >>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc, >>> + [-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc],,, >>> + [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC, 1, >>> + [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc.])]) >>> ;; >>> loongarch*-*-*) >>> gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([.dtprelword support],
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:56:09 PDT (-0700), Patrick O'Neill wrote: > > On 6/12/24 16:49, Sam James wrote: >> Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> writes: >> >>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:20:26 PDT (-0700), Patrick O'Neill wrote: >>>> Binutils 2.42 and before don't support Zaamo/Zalrsc. Add a configure >>>> check to prevent emitting Zaamo/Zalrsc in the arch string when the >>>> assember does not support it. >>> Should we just rewrite these to A when binutils doesn't support the >>> subsets? That'd avoid a forced binutils bump, but really user should >>> be upgrading anyway... Either way >>> >>> Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V >>> Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V >>> >>> though I'm not suer if the configure churn is sane, it looks like a >>> version mismatch of some sort. Hopefully someone who knows those bits >>> better can chime in? >> Your instinct is right! >> >>>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>>> >>>> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >>>> (riscv_subset_list::to_string): Skip zaamo/zalrsc when not >>>> supported by the assembler. >>>> * config.in: Regenerate. >>>> * configure: Regenerate. >>>> * configure.ac: Add zaamo/zalrsc assmeber check. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Patrick O'Neill <patrick@rivosinc.com> >>>> --- >>>> Tested using newlib rv64gc with binutils tip-of-tree and 2.42. >>>> >>>> This results in calls being emitted when compiling for _zaamo_zalrsc >>>> when the assember does not support these extensions. >>>> >>>>> cat amo.c >>>> void foo (int* bar, int* baz) >>>> { >>>> __atomic_add_fetch(bar, baz, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); >>>> } >>>>> gcc -march=rv64id_zaamo_zalrsc -O3 amo.c >>>> results in: >>>> foo: >>>> sext.w a1,a1 >>>> li a2,0 >>>> tail __atomic_fetch_add_4 >>>> >>>> As a result there are some testsuite failures on zalrsc specific >>>> testcases and when using an old version of binutils on non-a targets. >>>> Not a cause for concern imo but worth calling out. >>>> Also testcases that check for the default isa string will fail with >>>> the old binutils since zaamo/zalrsc aren't emitted anymore. >>>> --- >>>> gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc | 11 +++++++ >>>> gcc/config.in | 6 ++++ >>>> gcc/configure | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++--- >>>> gcc/configure.ac | 5 +++ >>>> 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >>>> index 78dfd6b1470..1dc1d9904c7 100644 >>>> --- a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >>>> +++ b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >>>> @@ -916,6 +916,7 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const >>>> riscv_subset_t *subset; >>>> >>>> bool skip_zifencei = false; >>>> + bool skip_zaamo_zalrsc = false; >>>> bool skip_zicsr = false; >>>> bool i2p0 = false; >>>> >>>> @@ -943,6 +944,10 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const >>>> a mistake in that binutils 2.35 supports zicsr but not zifencei. */ >>>> skip_zifencei = true; >>>> #endif >>>> +#ifndef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC >>>> + /* Skip since binutils 2.42 and earlier don't recognize zaamo/zalrsc. */ >>>> + skip_zaamo_zalrsc = true; >>>> +#endif >>>> >>>> for (subset = m_head; subset != NULL; subset = subset->next) >>>> { >>>> @@ -954,6 +959,12 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const >>>> subset->name == "zicsr") >>>> continue; >>>> >>>> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zaamo") >>>> + continue; >>>> + >>>> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zalrsc") >>>> + continue; >>>> + >>>> /* For !version_p, we only separate extension with underline for >>>> multi-letter extension. */ >>>> if (!first && >>>> diff --git a/gcc/config.in b/gcc/config.in >>>> index e41b6dc97cd..acab3c0f126 100644 >>>> --- a/gcc/config.in >>>> +++ b/gcc/config.in >>>> @@ -629,6 +629,12 @@ >>>> #endif >>>> >>>> >>>> +/* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc. */ >>>> +#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET >>>> +#undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC >>>> +#endif >>>> + >>>> + >>>> /* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei. */ >>>> #ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET >>>> #undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI >>>> diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure >>>> index aaf5899cc03..09b794c1225 100755 >>>> --- a/gcc/configure >>>> +++ b/gcc/configure >>>> @@ -6228,7 +6228,7 @@ else >>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >> I think you may be using patched autoconf which fixes >> http://bugs.debian.org/742780. >> >> The fix landed in 2.70: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=commit;h=a1d8293f3bfa2516f9a0424e3a6e63c2f8e93c6e. >> >> Please drop those hunks. > > I thought I could get away with using the apt autoconf2.69 package > directly ;) > > Thanks. I'll regenerate without those hunks for v2. FWIW, I just use the distro packages, toss the hunks I don't like, and thes re-build things to make sure it doesn't fall over and die. Just don't tell the autoconf people that, I'm sure they'd be horrified ;) > > Patrick > >> >> >>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >>>> ? 1 : -1]; >>>> @@ -6274,7 +6274,7 @@ else >>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >>>> ? 1 : -1]; >>>> @@ -6298,7 +6298,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext >>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >>>> ? 1 : -1]; >>>> @@ -6343,7 +6343,7 @@ else >>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >>>> ? 1 : -1]; >>>> @@ -6367,7 +6367,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext >>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >>>> ? 1 : -1]; >>>> @@ -30820,6 +30820,37 @@ if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zifencei = yes; then >>>> >>>> $as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI 1" >>confdefs.h >>>> >>>> +fi >>>> + >>>> + { $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support" >&5 >>>> +$as_echo_n "checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support... " >&6; } >>>> +if ${gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc+:} false; then : >>>> + $as_echo_n "(cached) " >&6 >>>> +else >>>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=no >>>> + if test x$gcc_cv_as != x; then >>>> + $as_echo '' > conftest.s >>>> + if { ac_try='$gcc_cv_as $gcc_cv_as_flags -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc -o conftest.o conftest.s >&5' >>>> + { { eval echo "\"\$as_me\":${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \"$ac_try\""; } >&5 >>>> + (eval $ac_try) 2>&5 >>>> + ac_status=$? >>>> + $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \$? = $ac_status" >&5 >>>> + test $ac_status = 0; }; } >>>> + then >>>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=yes >>>> + else >>>> + echo "configure: failed program was" >&5 >>>> + cat conftest.s >&5 >>>> + fi >>>> + rm -f conftest.o conftest.s >>>> + fi >>>> +fi >>>> +{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&5 >>>> +$as_echo "$gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&6; } >>>> +if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc = yes; then >>>> + >>>> +$as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC 1" >>confdefs.h >>>> + >>>> fi >>>> >>>> ;; >>>> diff --git a/gcc/configure.ac b/gcc/configure.ac >>>> index f8d67efeb98..c54748cd9aa 100644 >>>> --- a/gcc/configure.ac >>>> +++ b/gcc/configure.ac >>>> @@ -5452,6 +5452,11 @@ configured with --enable-newlib-nano-formatted-io.]) >>>> [-march=rv32i_zifencei2p0],,, >>>> [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI, 1, >>>> [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei.])]) >>>> + gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support], >>>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc, >>>> + [-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc],,, >>>> + [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC, 1, >>>> + [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc.])]) >>>> ;; >>>> loongarch*-*-*) >>>> gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([.dtprelword support],
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> writes: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:56:09 PDT (-0700), Patrick O'Neill wrote: >> >> On 6/12/24 16:49, Sam James wrote: >>> Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:20:26 PDT (-0700), Patrick O'Neill wrote: >>>>> Binutils 2.42 and before don't support Zaamo/Zalrsc. Add a configure >>>>> check to prevent emitting Zaamo/Zalrsc in the arch string when the >>>>> assember does not support it. >>>> Should we just rewrite these to A when binutils doesn't support the >>>> subsets? That'd avoid a forced binutils bump, but really user should >>>> be upgrading anyway... Either way >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V >>>> Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V >>>> >>>> though I'm not suer if the configure churn is sane, it looks like a >>>> version mismatch of some sort. Hopefully someone who knows those bits >>>> better can chime in? >>> Your instinct is right! >>> >>>>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>>>> >>>>> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >>>>> (riscv_subset_list::to_string): Skip zaamo/zalrsc when not >>>>> supported by the assembler. >>>>> * config.in: Regenerate. >>>>> * configure: Regenerate. >>>>> * configure.ac: Add zaamo/zalrsc assmeber check. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Patrick O'Neill <patrick@rivosinc.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> Tested using newlib rv64gc with binutils tip-of-tree and 2.42. >>>>> >>>>> This results in calls being emitted when compiling for _zaamo_zalrsc >>>>> when the assember does not support these extensions. >>>>> >>>>>> cat amo.c >>>>> void foo (int* bar, int* baz) >>>>> { >>>>> __atomic_add_fetch(bar, baz, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); >>>>> } >>>>>> gcc -march=rv64id_zaamo_zalrsc -O3 amo.c >>>>> results in: >>>>> foo: >>>>> sext.w a1,a1 >>>>> li a2,0 >>>>> tail __atomic_fetch_add_4 >>>>> >>>>> As a result there are some testsuite failures on zalrsc specific >>>>> testcases and when using an old version of binutils on non-a targets. >>>>> Not a cause for concern imo but worth calling out. >>>>> Also testcases that check for the default isa string will fail with >>>>> the old binutils since zaamo/zalrsc aren't emitted anymore. >>>>> --- >>>>> gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc | 11 +++++++ >>>>> gcc/config.in | 6 ++++ >>>>> gcc/configure | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++--- >>>>> gcc/configure.ac | 5 +++ >>>>> 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >>>>> index 78dfd6b1470..1dc1d9904c7 100644 >>>>> --- a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >>>>> +++ b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >>>>> @@ -916,6 +916,7 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const >>>>> riscv_subset_t *subset; >>>>> >>>>> bool skip_zifencei = false; >>>>> + bool skip_zaamo_zalrsc = false; >>>>> bool skip_zicsr = false; >>>>> bool i2p0 = false; >>>>> >>>>> @@ -943,6 +944,10 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const >>>>> a mistake in that binutils 2.35 supports zicsr but not zifencei. */ >>>>> skip_zifencei = true; >>>>> #endif >>>>> +#ifndef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC >>>>> + /* Skip since binutils 2.42 and earlier don't recognize zaamo/zalrsc. */ >>>>> + skip_zaamo_zalrsc = true; >>>>> +#endif >>>>> >>>>> for (subset = m_head; subset != NULL; subset = subset->next) >>>>> { >>>>> @@ -954,6 +959,12 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const >>>>> subset->name == "zicsr") >>>>> continue; >>>>> >>>>> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zaamo") >>>>> + continue; >>>>> + >>>>> + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zalrsc") >>>>> + continue; >>>>> + >>>>> /* For !version_p, we only separate extension with underline for >>>>> multi-letter extension. */ >>>>> if (!first && >>>>> diff --git a/gcc/config.in b/gcc/config.in >>>>> index e41b6dc97cd..acab3c0f126 100644 >>>>> --- a/gcc/config.in >>>>> +++ b/gcc/config.in >>>>> @@ -629,6 +629,12 @@ >>>>> #endif >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> +/* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc. */ >>>>> +#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET >>>>> +#undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC >>>>> +#endif >>>>> + >>>>> + >>>>> /* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei. */ >>>>> #ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET >>>>> #undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI >>>>> diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure >>>>> index aaf5899cc03..09b794c1225 100755 >>>>> --- a/gcc/configure >>>>> +++ b/gcc/configure >>>>> @@ -6228,7 +6228,7 @@ else >>>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >>>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >>>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >>>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >>>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >>>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >>> I think you may be using patched autoconf which fixes >>> http://bugs.debian.org/742780. >>> >>> The fix landed in 2.70: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=commit;h=a1d8293f3bfa2516f9a0424e3a6e63c2f8e93c6e. >>> >>> Please drop those hunks. >> >> I thought I could get away with using the apt autoconf2.69 package >> directly ;) >> >> Thanks. I'll regenerate without those hunks for v2. > > FWIW, I just use the distro packages, toss the hunks I don't like, and > thes re-build things to make sure it doesn't fall over and die. Just > don't tell the autoconf people that, I'm sure they'd be horrified ;) On good Linux distributions, you can do: $ emerge dev-build/autoconf-vanilla dev-build/automake-vanilla $ export WANT_AUTOCONF=vanilla-2.69 WANT_AUTOMAKE=vanilla-1.15 $ autoconf --version autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.69 [...] ;) > >> >> Patrick >> >>> >>> >>>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >>>>> ? 1 : -1]; >>>>> @@ -6274,7 +6274,7 @@ else >>>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >>>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >>>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >>>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >>>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >>>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >>>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >>>>> ? 1 : -1]; >>>>> @@ -6298,7 +6298,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext >>>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >>>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >>>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >>>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >>>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >>>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >>>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >>>>> ? 1 : -1]; >>>>> @@ -6343,7 +6343,7 @@ else >>>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >>>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >>>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >>>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >>>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >>>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >>>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >>>>> ? 1 : -1]; >>>>> @@ -6367,7 +6367,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext >>>>> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, >>>>> since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers >>>>> incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ >>>>> -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) >>>>> +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) >>>>> int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 >>>>> && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) >>>>> ? 1 : -1]; >>>>> @@ -30820,6 +30820,37 @@ if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zifencei = yes; then >>>>> >>>>> $as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI 1" >>confdefs.h >>>>> >>>>> +fi >>>>> + >>>>> + { $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support" >&5 >>>>> +$as_echo_n "checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support... " >&6; } >>>>> +if ${gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc+:} false; then : >>>>> + $as_echo_n "(cached) " >&6 >>>>> +else >>>>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=no >>>>> + if test x$gcc_cv_as != x; then >>>>> + $as_echo '' > conftest.s >>>>> + if { ac_try='$gcc_cv_as $gcc_cv_as_flags -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc -o conftest.o conftest.s >&5' >>>>> + { { eval echo "\"\$as_me\":${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \"$ac_try\""; } >&5 >>>>> + (eval $ac_try) 2>&5 >>>>> + ac_status=$? >>>>> + $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \$? = $ac_status" >&5 >>>>> + test $ac_status = 0; }; } >>>>> + then >>>>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=yes >>>>> + else >>>>> + echo "configure: failed program was" >&5 >>>>> + cat conftest.s >&5 >>>>> + fi >>>>> + rm -f conftest.o conftest.s >>>>> + fi >>>>> +fi >>>>> +{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&5 >>>>> +$as_echo "$gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&6; } >>>>> +if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc = yes; then >>>>> + >>>>> +$as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC 1" >>confdefs.h >>>>> + >>>>> fi >>>>> >>>>> ;; >>>>> diff --git a/gcc/configure.ac b/gcc/configure.ac >>>>> index f8d67efeb98..c54748cd9aa 100644 >>>>> --- a/gcc/configure.ac >>>>> +++ b/gcc/configure.ac >>>>> @@ -5452,6 +5452,11 @@ configured with --enable-newlib-nano-formatted-io.]) >>>>> [-march=rv32i_zifencei2p0],,, >>>>> [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI, 1, >>>>> [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei.])]) >>>>> + gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support], >>>>> + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc, >>>>> + [-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc],,, >>>>> + [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC, 1, >>>>> + [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc.])]) >>>>> ;; >>>>> loongarch*-*-*) >>>>> gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([.dtprelword support],
On 6/12/24 5:20 PM, Patrick O'Neill wrote: > Binutils 2.42 and before don't support Zaamo/Zalrsc. Add a configure > check to prevent emitting Zaamo/Zalrsc in the arch string when the > assember does not support it. > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc > (riscv_subset_list::to_string): Skip zaamo/zalrsc when not > supported by the assembler. > * config.in: Regenerate. > * configure: Regenerate. > * configure.ac: Add zaamo/zalrsc assmeber check. OK. It looks like you've got some unexpected diff fragmets in configure -- all the LARGE_OFF_T stuff. They look OK to me, but something like that is usually a sign of different autoconf versions. I wouldn't lose any sleep if you left them as-is or removed those hunks before committing. jeff
On 6/13/24 13:02, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 6/12/24 5:20 PM, Patrick O'Neill wrote: >> Binutils 2.42 and before don't support Zaamo/Zalrsc. Add a configure >> check to prevent emitting Zaamo/Zalrsc in the arch string when the >> assember does not support it. >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc >> (riscv_subset_list::to_string): Skip zaamo/zalrsc when not >> supported by the assembler. >> * config.in: Regenerate. >> * configure: Regenerate. >> * configure.ac: Add zaamo/zalrsc assmeber check. > OK. > > It looks like you've got some unexpected diff fragmets in configure -- > all the LARGE_OFF_T stuff. They look OK to me, but something like > that is usually a sign of different autoconf versions. I wouldn't > lose any sleep if you left them as-is or removed those hunks before > committing. > > jeff > Removed the hunks and committed. Sent the committed version to the list for the archiver. I'll rebase the promotion RFC [1] on top and resolve the warning that Andreas Schwab noticed. Patrick [1]: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/patch/20240613233059.1451117-1-patrick@rivosinc.com/
diff --git a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc index 78dfd6b1470..1dc1d9904c7 100644 --- a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc +++ b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc @@ -916,6 +916,7 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const riscv_subset_t *subset; bool skip_zifencei = false; + bool skip_zaamo_zalrsc = false; bool skip_zicsr = false; bool i2p0 = false; @@ -943,6 +944,10 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const a mistake in that binutils 2.35 supports zicsr but not zifencei. */ skip_zifencei = true; #endif +#ifndef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC + /* Skip since binutils 2.42 and earlier don't recognize zaamo/zalrsc. */ + skip_zaamo_zalrsc = true; +#endif for (subset = m_head; subset != NULL; subset = subset->next) { @@ -954,6 +959,12 @@ riscv_subset_list::to_string (bool version_p) const subset->name == "zicsr") continue; + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zaamo") + continue; + + if (skip_zaamo_zalrsc && subset->name == "zalrsc") + continue; + /* For !version_p, we only separate extension with underline for multi-letter extension. */ if (!first && diff --git a/gcc/config.in b/gcc/config.in index e41b6dc97cd..acab3c0f126 100644 --- a/gcc/config.in +++ b/gcc/config.in @@ -629,6 +629,12 @@ #endif +/* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc. */ +#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET +#undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC +#endif + + /* Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei. */ #ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET #undef HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure index aaf5899cc03..09b794c1225 100755 --- a/gcc/configure +++ b/gcc/configure @@ -6228,7 +6228,7 @@ else We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) ? 1 : -1]; @@ -6274,7 +6274,7 @@ else We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) ? 1 : -1]; @@ -6298,7 +6298,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) ? 1 : -1]; @@ -6343,7 +6343,7 @@ else We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) ? 1 : -1]; @@ -6367,7 +6367,7 @@ rm -f core conftest.err conftest.$ac_objext conftest.$ac_ext We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to be 9223372036854775807, since some C++ compilers masquerading as C compilers incorrectly reject 9223372036854775807. */ -#define LARGE_OFF_T (((off_t) 1 << 62) - 1 + ((off_t) 1 << 62)) +#define LARGE_OFF_T ((((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31) - 1 + (((off_t) 1 << 31) << 31)) int off_t_is_large[(LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483629 == 721 && LARGE_OFF_T % 2147483647 == 1) ? 1 : -1]; @@ -30820,6 +30820,37 @@ if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zifencei = yes; then $as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI 1" >>confdefs.h +fi + + { $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support" >&5 +$as_echo_n "checking assembler for -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support... " >&6; } +if ${gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc+:} false; then : + $as_echo_n "(cached) " >&6 +else + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=no + if test x$gcc_cv_as != x; then + $as_echo '' > conftest.s + if { ac_try='$gcc_cv_as $gcc_cv_as_flags -march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc -o conftest.o conftest.s >&5' + { { eval echo "\"\$as_me\":${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \"$ac_try\""; } >&5 + (eval $ac_try) 2>&5 + ac_status=$? + $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \$? = $ac_status" >&5 + test $ac_status = 0; }; } + then + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc=yes + else + echo "configure: failed program was" >&5 + cat conftest.s >&5 + fi + rm -f conftest.o conftest.s + fi +fi +{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&5 +$as_echo "$gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc" >&6; } +if test $gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc = yes; then + +$as_echo "#define HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC 1" >>confdefs.h + fi ;; diff --git a/gcc/configure.ac b/gcc/configure.ac index f8d67efeb98..c54748cd9aa 100644 --- a/gcc/configure.ac +++ b/gcc/configure.ac @@ -5452,6 +5452,11 @@ configured with --enable-newlib-nano-formatted-io.]) [-march=rv32i_zifencei2p0],,, [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZIFENCEI, 1, [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zifencei.])]) + gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc support], + gcc_cv_as_riscv_march_zaamo_zalrsc, + [-march=rv32i_zaamo_zalrsc],,, + [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AS_MARCH_ZAAMO_ZALRSC, 1, + [Define if the assembler understands -march=rv*_zaamo_zalrsc.])]) ;; loongarch*-*-*) gcc_GAS_CHECK_FEATURE([.dtprelword support],