On 1/17/23 15:59, Vineet Gupta wrote:
This could be useful for library writers who want to write code variants
for fast vs. slow unaligned accesses.
We distinguish explicit -mstrict-align (1) vs. slow_unaligned_access
cpu tune param (2) for even more code divesity.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/riscv-c.cc (riscv_cpu_cpp_builtins):
Generate __riscv_strict_align with value 1 or 2.
* config/riscv/riscv.cc: Define riscv_user_wants_strict_align.
(riscv_option_override) Set riscv_user_wants_strict_align to
TARGET_STRICT_ALIGN.
* config/riscv/riscv.h: Declare riscv_user_wants_strict_align.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/attribute.c: Check for
__riscv_strict_align=1.
* gcc.target/riscv/predef-align-1.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/predef-align-2.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/predef-align-3.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/predef-align-4.c: New test.
* gcc.target/riscv/predef-align-5.c: New test.
Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vine...@rivosinc.com>
---
gcc/config/riscv/riscv-c.cc | 11 +++++++++++
gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc | 9 +++++++++
gcc/config/riscv/riscv.h | 1 +
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/attribute-4.c | 9 +++++++++
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/predef-align-1.c | 12 ++++++++++++
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/predef-align-2.c | 11 +++++++++++
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/predef-align-3.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/predef-align-4.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/predef-align-5.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
9 files changed, 100 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/predef-align-1.c
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/predef-align-2.c
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/predef-align-3.c
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/predef-align-4.c
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/predef-align-5.c
diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-c.cc b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-c.cc
index 826ae0067bb8..47a396501d74 100644
--- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-c.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-c.cc
@@ -102,6 +102,17 @@ riscv_cpu_cpp_builtins (cpp_reader *pfile)
}
+ /* TARGET_STRICT_ALIGN does not cover all cases. */
+ if (riscv_slow_unaligned_access_p)
+ {
+ /* Explicit -mstruct-align preceedes cpu tune param
+ slow_unaligned_access=true. */
Did you mean "-mstrict-align" above?
+ if (riscv_user_wants_strict_align)
+ builtin_define_with_int_value ("__riscv_strict_align", 1);
+ else
+ builtin_define_with_int_value ("__riscv_strict_align", 2);
So I don't understand why we're testing "riscv_user_wants_strict_align"
instead of TARGET_STRICT_ALIGN here. AFAICT they're equivalent. But
maybe there's something subtle I'm missing.
Jeff
