Hi, Indeed I wasn't asking for a ~partial revert, rather making sure the new behaviour is intended: current GCC trunk won't build with A-profile multilibs unless using trunk binutils. We probably had the same situation when v8-a was introduced, just maybe I wasn't running CI with multilibs enabled at that time.
Anyway, as Richard & Ramana said, if there is no real need for v9-a multilibs, dropping them would save build time and disk size. Thanks, Christophe On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 1:29 PM Ramana Radhakrishnan < ramana.radhakrish...@arm.com> wrote: > Hi There, > > > > I think for AArch32 mapping it back to armv8-a sounds sufficient. Unless > we have string or math routines in newlib that make use of any ACLE guards > that are beyond armv8-a … > > > > Ramana > > > > > > *From: *Richard Earnshaw <richard.earns...@foss.arm.com> > *Date: *Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 11:48 > *To: *Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon....@gmail.com>, Przemyslaw Wirkus < > przemyslaw.wir...@arm.com> > *Cc: *Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrish...@arm.com>, > gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Richard Earnshaw < > richard.earns...@arm.com> > *Subject: *Re: [PATCH][GCC] arm: add armv9-a architecture to -march > > You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, as they say. New > architectures need new assemblers. > > However, I wonder if there's anything in v9-a that significantly affects > the quality of the base multilib code needed for building the libraries. > It might be that we can deal with v9-a by just mapping it to the v8-a > equivalents. That would then avoid the need for an updated assembler, > and reduce the build time and install footprint. > > R. > > > On 16/11/2021 08:03, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 12:36 PM Przemyslaw Wirkus via Gcc-patches < > > gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Przemyslaw Wirkus > >>>>> Sent: 18 October 2021 10:37 > >>>>> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > >>>>> Cc: Richard Earnshaw <richard.earns...@arm.com>; Ramana > >>>>> Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrish...@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov > >>>>> <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com>; ni...@redhat.com > >>>>> Subject: [PATCH][GCC] arm: add armv9-a architecture to -march > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> This patch is adding `armv9-a` to -march in Arm GCC. > >>>>> > >>>>> In this patch: > >>>>> + Add `armv9-a` to -march. > >>>>> + Update multilib with armv9-a and armv9-a+simd. > >>>>> > >>>>> After this patch three additional multilib directories are available: > >>>>> > >>>>> $ arm-none-eabi-gcc --print-multi-lib .; [...vanilla multi-lib > >>>>> dirs...] thumb/v9-a/nofp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a@mfloat-abi=soft > >>>>> thumb/v9-a+simd/softfp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat- > >>>>> abi=softfp > >>>>> thumb/v9-a+simd/hard;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat- > >>>>> abi=hard > >>>>> > >> > > > > This is causing a GCC build failure when using "old" binutils (I'm using > > 2.36.1), > > because the new -march=armv9-a option is not supported. This breaks the > > multilib support. > > > > I don't remember how we handled similar cases in the past? Is that just > > "expected", and > > "current" GCC needs "current" binutils, or should we have a multilib list > > dependent on > > the actual binutils support? (I think this is not the case, and it sounds > > like an undesirable > > extra complication in an already overcrowded mutilib-Makefile) > > > > Christophe > > > >>>> New multi-lib directories under > >>>>> $GCC_INSTALL_DIE/lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/12.0.0/thumb are created: > >>>>> > >>>>> thumb/ > >>>>> +--- v9-a > >>>>> | |--- nofp > >>>>> | > >>>>> +--- v9-a+simd > >>>>> |--- hard > >>>>> |--- softfp > >>>>> > >>>>> Regtested on arm-none-eabi cross and no issues. > >>>>> > >>>>> OK for master? > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> commit 32ba7860ccaddd5219e6dae94a3d0653e124c9dd > >> > >>> Ok. > >>> Thanks, > >>> Kyrill > >>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> gcc/ChangeLog: > >>>>> > >>>>> * config/arm/arm-cpus.in (armv9): New define. > >>>>> (ARMv9a): New group. > >>>>> (armv9-a): New arch definition. > >>>>> * config/arm/arm-tables.opt: Regenerate. > >>>>> * config/arm/arm.h (BASE_ARCH_9A): New arch enum value. > >>>>> * config/arm/t-aprofile: Added armv9-a and armv9+simd. > >>>>> * config/arm/t-arm-elf: Added arm9-a, v9_fps and all_v9_archs > >>>>> to MULTILIB_MATCHES. > >>>>> * config/arm/t-multilib: Added v9_a_nosimd_variants and > >>>>> v9_a_simd_variants to MULTILIB_MATCHES. > >>>>> * doc/invoke.texi: Update docs. > >>>>> > >>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > >>>>> > >>>>> * gcc.target/arm/multilib.exp: Update test with armv9-a entries. > >>>>> * lib/target-supports.exp (v9a): Add new armflag. > >>>>> (__ARM_ARCH_9A__): Add new armdef. > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> kind regards, > >>>>> Przemyslaw Wirkus > >> > >> >
