On 10 June 2017 at 01:27, Richard Earnshaw (lists) <richard.earns...@arm.com> wrote: > On 09/06/17 23:45, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> Hi Richard, >> >> >> On 9 June 2017 at 14:53, Richard Earnshaw <richard.earns...@arm.com> wrote: >>> >>> During the ARM BoF at the Cauldron last year I mentioned that I wanted >>> to rework the way GCC on ARM handles the command line options. The >>> problem was that most users, and even many experts, can't remember >>> which FPU/SIMD unit comes with which CPU and that consequently many >>> users were inadvertenly generating sub-optimal code for their system. >>> >>> This patch series implements the proposed change and provides support >>> for a generic way of adding optional features to architectures and CPU >>> names. The documentation patches at the end of the series explain the >>> new syntax, so I won't repeat all that here. Suffice to say here that >>> the result is that the -mfpu option now defaults to 'auto', which >>> allows the compiler to infer the floating-point and simd options from >>> the CPU/architecture options and that these options can normally be >>> expressed in a context-specific manner like +simd or +fp without >>> having to know precisely which variant is implemented. Long term I'd >>> like to deprecate -mfpu and entirely move over to the new syntax; but >>> it's too early to start that process now. >>> >>> All the patches in the series should build a working basic compiler, >>> but the multilib selection will not work correctly until the relevant >>> patches towards the end are applied. It is not really feasible to >>> retain that functionality without collapsing too many of the patches >>> together into one hunk. It's also possible that some tests in the >>> testsuite may exhibit transient misbehaviour, but there should be no >>> regressions by the end of the sequence (some tests no-longer run in >>> the default configurations because the default CPU does not have >>> floating-point support). >>> >>> Just two patches are to the generic code, but both are fairly trivial. >>> One permits the sbitmap code to be used in the driver programs and the >>> other provides a way of escaping the meta-character in some multilib >>> reuse strings. >>> >>> I won't apply any of this series until those two patches have been >>> approved, and I won't commit anything before the middle of next week >>> even then. This is a fairly complex change and it deserves some time >>> for people to comment before committing. >>> >>> R. >>> >>> Richard Earnshaw (30): >>> [arm] Use strings for -march, -mcpu and -mtune options >>> [arm] Rewrite -march and -mcpu options for passing to the assembler >>> [arm] Don't pass -mfpu=auto through to the assembler. >>> [arm] Allow +opt on arbitrary cpu and architecture specifications >>> [arm] Add architectural options >>> [arm] Add default FPUs for CPUs. >>> [build] Make sbitmap code available to the driver programs >>> [arm] Split CPU, architecture and tuning data tables. >>> [ARM] Move cpu and architecture option name parsing code to >>> arm-common.c >>> [arm] Use standard option parsing code for detecting thumb-only >>> targets >>> [arm] Allow CPU and architecture extensions to be defined as aliases >>> [arm] Allow new extended syntax CPU and architecture names during >>> configure >>> [arm] Force a CPU default in the config args defaults list. >>> [arm] Generate a canonical form for -march >>> [arm] Make -mfloat-abi=softfp work when there are no FPU instructions >>> [arm] Update basic multilib configuration >>> [arm] Make 'auto' the default FPU selection option. >>> [arm] Rewrite t-aprofile using new selector methodology >>> [arm] Explicitly set .fpu in cmse_nonsecure_call.S >>> [genmultilib] Allow explicit periods to be escaped in MULTILIB_REUSE >>> [arm][testsuite] Use -march=armv7-a+fp when testing hard-float ABI. >>> [arm] Rewrite t-rmprofile multilib specification >>> [arm][rtems] Update t-rtems for new option framework >>> [arm][linux-eabi] Ensure all multilib variables are reset >>> [arm][phoenix] reset all multilib variables >>> [arm] Rework multlib builds for symbianelf >>> [arm][fuchsia] Rework multilib support >>> [arm] Add a few missing architecture extension options. >>> [arm][doc] Document new -march= syntax. >>> [arm][doc] Document changes to -mcpu, -mtune and -mfpu. >>> >>> gcc/Makefile.in | 2 +- >>> gcc/common/config/arm/arm-common.c | 651 +++++++- >>> gcc/config.gcc | 17 +- >>> gcc/config/arm/arm-builtins.c | 4 +- >>> gcc/config/arm/arm-cpu-cdata.h | 2444 >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++------ >>> gcc/config/arm/arm-cpu-data.h | 1410 ++--------------- >>> gcc/config/arm/arm-cpu.h | 38 + >>> gcc/config/arm/arm-cpus.in | 237 ++- >>> gcc/config/arm/arm-isa.h | 20 +- >>> gcc/config/arm/arm-protos.h | 56 +- >>> gcc/config/arm/arm-tables.opt | 21 +- >>> gcc/config/arm/arm.c | 337 ++-- >>> gcc/config/arm/arm.h | 75 +- >>> gcc/config/arm/arm.opt | 15 +- >>> gcc/config/arm/bpabi.h | 4 - >>> gcc/config/arm/elf.h | 6 +- >>> gcc/config/arm/linux-elf.h | 3 - >>> gcc/config/arm/netbsd-elf.h | 4 - >>> gcc/config/arm/parsecpu.awk | 295 +++- >>> gcc/config/arm/t-aprofile | 200 +-- >>> gcc/config/arm/t-arm-elf | 173 +- >>> gcc/config/arm/t-fuchsia | 33 + >>> gcc/config/arm/t-linux-eabi | 4 + >>> gcc/config/arm/t-multilib | 126 +- >>> gcc/config/arm/t-phoenix | 20 +- >>> gcc/config/arm/t-rmprofile | 147 +- >>> gcc/config/arm/t-rtems | 49 +- >>> gcc/config/arm/t-symbian | 34 +- >>> gcc/config/arm/vxworks.h | 2 - >>> gcc/doc/fragments.texi | 10 +- >>> gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 371 ++++- >>> gcc/genmultilib | 4 +- >>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr59418.c | 2 +- >>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/multilib.exp | 685 ++++++++ >>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr51915.c | 2 +- >>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr52006.c | 2 +- >>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr53187.c | 2 +- >>> libgcc/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S | 8 + >>> 38 files changed, 5073 insertions(+), 2440 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 gcc/config/arm/t-fuchsia >>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/multilib.exp >>> >>> ----------------2.7.4-- >>> >> >> I wanted to run a validation with the full series applied as one patch >> over r249050, >> so I just downloaded all the patches, concatenated them in order, but the >> result >> fails to apply. (conflicts with arm-cpu-cdata.h, arm-cpus.in, >> t-aprofile, t-rmprofile) >> >> Am I missing something? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Christophe >> > > I really appreciate you trying to do this... > > I rebased the patch series sometime on Tuesday/Wednesday just before Jim > Wilson committed his falkor change; you'll need to back out to just > before r248944. I can't think of anything else that might have just > gone in that might conflict. For arm-cpu-cdata.h (and the other > auto-generated files, like arm-cpu-data.h) you can just delete the file > and it will be rebuilt automatically, the others really do need the > conflict to be resolved. > > Obviously I'll rebase again just before the commit, but propagating such > changes through the patch series is quite tedious and I don't want to do > it any more than necessary :-). > > It would be easier if the generated files weren't checked in to the > repository... > > R.
Hi Richard, Starting a validation of the whole patch against r248942 did work, thanks. The results are here: http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc-test-patches/248942-rework-cpu-arch-fpu.patch/report-build-info.html Regressions are detected in many configurations, unfortunately. Some may be caused by the fact that I've upgraded to dejagnu-1.6+ for my testing, and thus "multilib flags" are now prepended rather than appended, but I don't think that's the majority. To help you understand/group all the reports: - all "arm-none-linux-gnueabi" with REGRESSED now have: FAIL: gcc.target/arm/neon-thumb2-move.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.target/arm/no-volatile-in-it.c scan-assembler-not ldrgt - same for the 2 configs arm-none-eabi --with-cpu=cortex-a9 - all "arm-none-linux-gnueabihf" and "armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf" with REGRESSED now have: FAIL: gcc.target/arm/no-volatile-in-it.c scan-assembler-not ldrgt - arm-none-eabi --with-cpu=cortex-m3 now has: FAIL: gcc.target/arm/no-volatile-in-it.c scan-assembler-not ldrgt gcc.target/arm/thumb2-slow-flash-data-2.c (test for excess errors) gcc.target/arm/thumb2-slow-flash-data-3.c (test for excess errors) gcc.target/arm/thumb2-slow-flash-data-4.c (test for excess errors) gcc.target/arm/thumb2-slow-flash-data-5.c (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/arm/thumb2-slow-flash-data-4.c scan-assembler-times #1\\.0e\\+0 3 gcc.target/arm/thumb2-slow-flash-data-5.c scan-assembler-not #1\\.0e\\+0 - The 2 cells with "BIG-REG" mean regressions where detected, but the report is >100kb so it was attached as a .xz file, click on 'BIG-REG" to download it. - the cells with "BETTER" can be questionable: it means no new failure appeared, but PASS -> UNSUPPORTED is considered as "better". Here we have cases with several thousands (!) of tests becoming unsupported, which looks a bit suspicious. Among other things, I've noticed that when passing -march=armv5t, arm_neon_ok fails: xgcc -march=armv5t -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=softfp -march= armv7-a -c -o arm_neon_ok15574.o arm_neon_ok15574.c arm_neon_ok15574.c:9:4: error: #error Architecture does not support NEON. compiler exited with status 1 I'd expect -march=armv7-a to allow to use -mfpu=neon? Regarding the new multilib.exp tests introduced by the patch, my testing did not run it because I have no configuration setting aprofile or rmprofile. Maybe it's time I add one, or update the existing ones. I didn't see any message "skipping multilib tests due to multilib_flags setting", but I guess that's because my runs are not verbose enough. That being said, I'm not sure how the multilib_flags are set in board_info? Is that derived from RUNTESTFLAGS? >From this report page, you can also click on "sum" and "log" (when present) to download the gcc.sum or gcc.log files. Feel free to ask more details if I haven't been clear enough. Thanks, Christophe
