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 <pal...@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 <pal...@rivosinc.com> # RISC-V
Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@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 <patr...@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],
