| Message ID | 20240802153220.3861120-1-jiawei@iscas.ac.cn |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | RISC-V: Minimal support for Zimop extension. | expand |
On 8/2/24 9:32 AM, Jiawei wrote: > https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/blob/main/src/zimop.adoc > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc: New extension. > * config/riscv/riscv.opt: New mask. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * gcc.target/riscv/arch-42.c: New test. > * gcc.target/riscv/arch-43.c: New test. Shouldn't the binutils bits go in first? There's basic support for Zimop/Zcmop from Lyut on the binutils list in late 2023 or early 2024. I'm pretty sure it marked as DO NOT MERGE because we were waiting for the extension to get ratified. I don't know if Lyut is doing any RISC-V work right now, so if you wanted to ping the patch on his behalf, it'd be appreciated and I can handle the review on the binutils side too. I think the GCC bits are fine, but let's get the binutils bits installed first. jeff
在 2024/8/5 8:45, Jeff Law 写道: > > > On 8/2/24 9:32 AM, Jiawei wrote: >> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/blob/main/src/zimop.adoc >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc: New extension. >> * config/riscv/riscv.opt: New mask. >> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >> >> * gcc.target/riscv/arch-42.c: New test. >> * gcc.target/riscv/arch-43.c: New test. > Shouldn't the binutils bits go in first? There's basic support for > Zimop/Zcmop from Lyut on the binutils list in late 2023 or early 2024. > I'm pretty sure it marked as DO NOT MERGE because we were waiting for > the extension to get ratified. Christoph informed me that Zimop has been ratified, so we may not need to worry about the spec lifecycle status: https://jira.riscv.org/browse/RVS-1603?src=confmacro > > I don't know if Lyut is doing any RISC-V work right now, so if you > wanted to ping the patch on his behalf, it'd be appreciated and I can > handle the review on the binutils side too. I found that ESWIN's patch to support Zimop on the binutils mailing list last month: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2024-June/134592.html > I think the GCC bits are fine, but let's get the binutils bits > installed first. > jeff Okay, Thank you for your comments! BR, jiawei
On 8/4/24 8:20 PM, Jiawei wrote: > > 在 2024/8/5 8:45, Jeff Law 写道: >> >> >> On 8/2/24 9:32 AM, Jiawei wrote: >>> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/blob/main/src/zimop.adoc >>> >>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>> >>> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc: New extension. >>> * config/riscv/riscv.opt: New mask. >>> >>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>> >>> * gcc.target/riscv/arch-42.c: New test. >>> * gcc.target/riscv/arch-43.c: New test. >> Shouldn't the binutils bits go in first? There's basic support for >> Zimop/Zcmop from Lyut on the binutils list in late 2023 or early 2024. >> I'm pretty sure it marked as DO NOT MERGE because we were waiting for >> the extension to get ratified. > > Christoph informed me that Zimop has been ratified, so we may not need > to worry about the spec lifecycle status: > > https://jira.riscv.org/browse/RVS-1603?src=confmacro Agreed. No concerns about spec lifecycle at this point. > >> >> I don't know if Lyut is doing any RISC-V work right now, so if you >> wanted to ping the patch on his behalf, it'd be appreciated and I can >> handle the review on the binutils side too. > > I found that ESWIN's patch to support Zimop on the binutils mailing list > last month: > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2024-June/134592.html I don't watch binutils as closely as perhaps I should. That patch looks marginally better than Lyut's version. It has the updated version #s for the spec and handles the implied extensions. Let's go with Xiao's version. Xiao, the Zimop/Zcmop patches are OK for binutils. Jiawei, the GCC patches are OK once Xiao pushes his changes to the binutils repo. Alternately if you have permissions in the binutils repo, you can push them for Xiao. Jeff
在 2024/8/5 22:15, Jeff Law 写道: > > > On 8/4/24 8:20 PM, Jiawei wrote: >> >> 在 2024/8/5 8:45, Jeff Law 写道: >>> >>> >>> On 8/2/24 9:32 AM, Jiawei wrote: >>>> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/blob/main/src/zimop.adoc >>>> >>>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>>> >>>> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc: New extension. >>>> * config/riscv/riscv.opt: New mask. >>>> >>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>>> >>>> * gcc.target/riscv/arch-42.c: New test. >>>> * gcc.target/riscv/arch-43.c: New test. >>> Shouldn't the binutils bits go in first? There's basic support for >>> Zimop/Zcmop from Lyut on the binutils list in late 2023 or early >>> 2024. I'm pretty sure it marked as DO NOT MERGE because we were >>> waiting for the extension to get ratified. >> >> Christoph informed me that Zimop has been ratified, so we may not >> need to worry about the spec lifecycle status: >> >> https://jira.riscv.org/browse/RVS-1603?src=confmacro > Agreed. No concerns about spec lifecycle at this point. > >> >>> >>> I don't know if Lyut is doing any RISC-V work right now, so if you >>> wanted to ping the patch on his behalf, it'd be appreciated and I >>> can handle the review on the binutils side too. >> >> I found that ESWIN's patch to support Zimop on the binutils mailing >> list last month: >> >> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2024-June/134592.html > I don't watch binutils as closely as perhaps I should. > > That patch looks marginally better than Lyut's version. It has the > updated version #s for the spec and handles the implied extensions. > Let's go with Xiao's version. > > Xiao, the Zimop/Zcmop patches are OK for binutils. > > Jiawei, the GCC patches are OK once Xiao pushes his changes to the > binutils repo. Alternately if you have permissions in the binutils > repo, you can push them for Xiao. > > Jeff Thanks Jeff! I think I do not have the permissions in the binutils repo, let me contact Nelson to ask him give some help. BR, Jiawei
On 8/5/24 9:21 AM, Jiawei wrote: > > Thanks Jeff! I think I do not have the permissions in the binutils repo, > let me contact Nelson to ask him give some help. Sounds good. Thanks for taking care of this. I just wish I'd noticed the patch a month ago so that we could have included it in the 2.43 release that was just made. jeff
2024-08-05 23:21 Jiawei <jiawei@iscas.ac.cn> wrote: > > >在 2024/8/5 22:15, Jeff Law 写道: >> >> >> On 8/4/24 8:20 PM, Jiawei wrote: >>> >>> 在 2024/8/5 8:45, Jeff Law 写道: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/2/24 9:32 AM, Jiawei wrote: >>>>> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/blob/main/src/zimop.adoc >>>>> >>>>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>>>> >>>>> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc: New extension. >>>>> * config/riscv/riscv.opt: New mask. >>>>> >>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>>>> >>>>> * gcc.target/riscv/arch-42.c: New test. >>>>> * gcc.target/riscv/arch-43.c: New test. >>>> Shouldn't the binutils bits go in first? There's basic support for >>>> Zimop/Zcmop from Lyut on the binutils list in late 2023 or early >>>> 2024. I'm pretty sure it marked as DO NOT MERGE because we were >>>> waiting for the extension to get ratified. >>> >>> Christoph informed me that Zimop has been ratified, so we may not >>> need to worry about the spec lifecycle status: >>> >>> https://jira.riscv.org/browse/RVS-1603?src=confmacro >> Agreed. No concerns about spec lifecycle at this point. >> >>> >>>> >>>> I don't know if Lyut is doing any RISC-V work right now, so if you >>>> wanted to ping the patch on his behalf, it'd be appreciated and I >>>> can handle the review on the binutils side too. >>> >>> I found that ESWIN's patch to support Zimop on the binutils mailing >>> list last month: >>> >>> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2024-June/134592.html >> I don't watch binutils as closely as perhaps I should. >> >> That patch looks marginally better than Lyut's version. It has the >> updated version #s for the spec and handles the implied extensions. >> Let's go with Xiao's version. >> >> Xiao, the Zimop/Zcmop patches are OK for binutils. >> >> Jiawei, the GCC patches are OK once Xiao pushes his changes to the >> binutils repo. Alternately if you have permissions in the binutils >> repo, you can push them for Xiao. >> >> Jeff > >Thanks Jeff! I think I do not have the permissions in the binutils repo, >let me contact Nelson to ask him give some help. I am glad that the patch previously submitted can still be discussed and may be accepted. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. > > >BR, > >Jiawei Thanks Xiao Zeng
2.43 was released over an weekend. Is it possible to let it be supported after 2.44? cc Nick and jan. Thanks Nelson On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 11:24 PM Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 8/5/24 9:21 AM, Jiawei wrote: > > > > > Thanks Jeff! I think I do not have the permissions in the binutils repo, > > let me contact Nelson to ask him give some help. > Sounds good. Thanks for taking care of this. I just wish I'd noticed > the patch a month ago so that we could have included it in the 2.43 > release that was just made. > > jeff > >
On 8/5/24 8:17 PM, Nelson Chu wrote: > 2.43 was released over an weekend. Is it possible to let it be > supported after 2.44? cc Nick and jan. I don't think it's critical enough to backport to 2.43. I'd just put it on the trunk so that it's available in 2.44. jeff
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 11:17 AM Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 8/5/24 8:17 PM, Nelson Chu wrote: > > 2.43 was released over an weekend. Is it possible to let it be > > supported after 2.44? cc Nick and jan. > I don't think it's critical enough to backport to 2.43. I'd just put it > on the trunk so that it's available in 2.44. > Thanks, committed the binutils part of zimop and zcmop from Xiao into trunk. Nelson
Hi Jeff, >> 2.43 was released over an weekend. Is it possible to let it be supported after 2.44? cc Nick and jan. > I don't think it's critical enough to backport to 2.43. I'd just put it on the trunk so that it's available in 2.44. It might be worth adding it to the 2.43 branch as well. It is looking like there will be need to create a point release this time as several other last-minute problems have been uncovered and fixed just too late to make it into the 2.43 release. Cheers Nick
On 8/6/24 3:31 AM, Nick Clifton wrote: > Hi Jeff, > >>> 2.43 was released over an weekend. Is it possible to let it be >>> supported after 2.44? cc Nick and jan. >> I don't think it's critical enough to backport to 2.43. I'd just put >> it on the trunk so that it's available in 2.44. > > It might be worth adding it to the 2.43 branch as well. It is looking > like there will be need to create a point release this time as several > other last-minute problems have been uncovered and fixed just too late > to make it into the 2.43 release. I certainly wouldn't object. It'll make my life marginally easier as we're carrying Lyut's version as one of the very few remaining local changes to binutils+gdb. Jeff
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 9:35 PM Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 8/6/24 3:31 AM, Nick Clifton wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > > > >>> 2.43 was released over an weekend. Is it possible to let it be > >>> supported after 2.44? cc Nick and jan. > >> I don't think it's critical enough to backport to 2.43. I'd just put > >> it on the trunk so that it's available in 2.44. > > > > It might be worth adding it to the 2.43 branch as well. It is looking > > like there will be need to create a point release this time as several > > other last-minute problems have been uncovered and fixed just too late > > to make it into the 2.43 release. > I certainly wouldn't object. It'll make my life marginally easier as > we're carrying Lyut's version as one of the very few remaining local > changes to binutils+gdb. > Sounds good to me, too. Once get the approval, I will backport them to binutils-2_43-branch :-) Thanks Nelson
Hi Nelson,
> Sounds good to me, too. Once get the approval, I will backport them to binutils-2_43-branch :-)
Please could you ping me once you have done that.
I will make sure not to make the point release before receiving your message.
Cheers
Nick
Hi Nick, Done for cherry-picking two patches to support riscv zimop and zcmop into binutils-2_43-branch. Commit bb566d7f, RISC-V: Add support for Zcmop extension Commit 305fe5ed, RISC-V: Add support for Zimop extension And also for gas/NEWS in the trunk, moved the entry into 2.43 section due to the backport. Commit 643f8ace, gas/NEWS: Moved RISC-V Zimop/Zcmop changes into 2.43 section due to backport. Thanks Nelson On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 3:57 PM Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Nelson, > > > Sounds good to me, too. Once get the approval, I will backport them to > binutils-2_43-branch :-) > > Please could you ping me once you have done that. > > I will make sure not to make the point release before receiving your > message. > > Cheers > Nick > > >
diff --git a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc index 1944c7785c4..62c6e1dab1f 100644 --- a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc +++ b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc @@ -97,6 +97,8 @@ static const riscv_implied_info_t riscv_implied_info[] = {"zabha", "zaamo"}, {"zacas", "zaamo"}, + {"zcmop", "zca"}, + {"b", "zba"}, {"b", "zbb"}, {"b", "zbs"}, @@ -319,6 +321,9 @@ static const struct riscv_ext_version riscv_ext_version_table[] = {"zicclsm", ISA_SPEC_CLASS_NONE, 1, 0}, {"ziccrse", ISA_SPEC_CLASS_NONE, 1, 0}, + {"zimop", ISA_SPEC_CLASS_NONE, 1, 0}, + {"zcmop", ISA_SPEC_CLASS_NONE, 1, 0}, + {"zicntr", ISA_SPEC_CLASS_NONE, 2, 0}, {"zihpm", ISA_SPEC_CLASS_NONE, 2, 0}, @@ -1629,6 +1634,9 @@ static const riscv_ext_flag_table_t riscv_ext_flag_table[] = {"zicbop", &gcc_options::x_riscv_zicmo_subext, MASK_ZICBOP}, {"zic64b", &gcc_options::x_riscv_zicmo_subext, MASK_ZIC64B}, + {"zimop", &gcc_options::x_riscv_mop_subext, MASK_ZIMOP}, + {"zcmop", &gcc_options::x_riscv_mop_subext, MASK_ZCMOP}, + {"zve32x", &gcc_options::x_target_flags, MASK_VECTOR}, {"zve32f", &gcc_options::x_target_flags, MASK_VECTOR}, {"zve64x", &gcc_options::x_target_flags, MASK_VECTOR}, diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.opt b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.opt index 2e340e5324f..a8758abc918 100644 --- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.opt +++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.opt @@ -406,6 +406,13 @@ Mask(ZICBOP) Var(riscv_zicmo_subext) Mask(ZIC64B) Var(riscv_zicmo_subext) +TargetVariable +int riscv_mop_subext + +Mask(ZIMOP) Var(riscv_mop_subext) + +Mask(ZCMOP) Var(riscv_mop_subext) + TargetVariable int riscv_zf_subext diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/arch-42.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/arch-42.c new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..83f78d28dbe --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/arch-42.c @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-march=rv64i_zimop -mabi=lp64" } */ +int foo() +{ +} diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/arch-43.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/arch-43.c new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..4a300a165fd --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/arch-43.c @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-march=rv64i_zcmop -mabi=lp64" } */ +int foo() +{ +}