> So, going back to our testcases that reported errors with this, I
> don't think we should explicitly specify -march and -mabi when
> compiling a runnable program, but use the defaults (--with-arch).
> Most of our current runnable testcases adhere to this convention,
> except for the ones we are
3-11-13 19:27
To: kito.cheng; Robin Dapp
CC: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; gcc-patches; palmer; jeffreyalaw
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: testsuite: Fix 32-bit FAILs.
Hi Kito,
On 2023/11/13 19:13, Lehua Ding wrote:
Hi Robin,
On 2023/11/13 18:33, Robin Dapp wrote:
On 2023/11/13 18:22, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
Date: 2023-11-13 19:27
> To: kito.cheng; Robin Dapp
> CC: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; gcc-patches; palmer; jeffreyalaw
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: testsuite: Fix 32-bit FAILs.
> Hi Kito,
>
> On 2023/11/13 19:13, Lehua Ding wrote:
> > Hi Robin,
> >
> > On 20
multilib patch as Lehua said:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/17d683d
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Lehua Ding
Date: 2023-11-13 19:27
To: kito.cheng; Robin Dapp
CC: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; gcc-patches; palmer; jeffreyalaw
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: testsuite: Fix 32-bit FAILs.
Hi Kito,
On
Hi Kito,
On 2023/11/13 19:13, Lehua Ding wrote:
Hi Robin,
On 2023/11/13 18:33, Robin Dapp wrote:
On 2023/11/13 18:22, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
If there is a difference between them. I think we should fix
riscv-common.cc.
Since I think "zvfh_zfh" should not be different with "zfh_zvfh"
I
Hi Robin,
On 2023/11/13 18:33, Robin Dapp wrote:
On 2023/11/13 18:22, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
If there is a difference between them. I think we should fix riscv-common.cc.
Since I think "zvfh_zfh" should not be different with "zfh_zvfh"
It's possible. Let me debug it and see if there's a
On 2023/11/13 18:33, Robin Dapp wrote:
On 2023/11/13 18:22, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
If there is a difference between them. I think we should fix riscv-common.cc.
Since I think "zvfh_zfh" should not be different with "zfh_zvfh"
It's possible. Let me debug it and see if there's a problem.
> On 2023/11/13 18:22, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
>> If there is a difference between them. I think we should fix riscv-common.cc.
>> Since I think "zvfh_zfh" should not be different with "zfh_zvfh"
>
> It's possible. Let me debug it and see if there's a problem.
I don't think it is different.
On 2023/11/13 18:22, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
If there is a difference between them. I think we should fix
riscv-common.cc.
Since I think "zvfh_zfh" should not be different with "zfh_zvfh"
It's possible. Let me debug it and see if there's a problem.
--
Best,
Lehua (RiVAI)
lehua.d...@riva
eng;
jeffreyalaw
CC: rdapp.gcc
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: testsuite: Fix 32-bit FAILs.
> Looks like your configure is --with-march=rv32gcv_zvfh, can you change to
> --with-march=rv32gcv_zvfh_zfh?
From config.log:
$ ../configure --prefix=/home/rdapp/projects/builds/gcc
--target
> Looks like your configure is --with-march=rv32gcv_zvfh, can you change to
> --with-march=rv32gcv_zvfh_zfh?
>From config.log:
$ ../configure --prefix=/home/rdapp/projects/builds/gcc
--target=riscv32-unknown-linux-gnu --disable-nls --disable-multilib
--disable-bootstrap
--with-sysroot=/home
On 2023/11/13 17:59, Robin Dapp wrote:
Hi Lehua,
Executing on host:
/work/home/lding/open-source/riscv-gnu-toolchain-push/build/dev-rv64gcv_zvfh_zfh-lp64d-medany-newlib-spike-debug/build-gcc-newlib-stage2/gcc/xgcc
-B/work/home/lding/open-source/riscv-gnu-toolchain-push/build/dev-rv64gcv_z
Hi Lehua,
> Executing on host:
> /work/home/lding/open-source/riscv-gnu-toolchain-push/build/dev-rv64gcv_zvfh_zfh-lp64d-medany-newlib-spike-debug/build-gcc-newlib-stage2/gcc/xgcc
>
> -B/work/home/lding/open-source/riscv-gnu-toolchain-push/build/dev-rv64gcv_zvfh_zfh-lp64d-medany-newlib-spike-deb
Hi Robin,
Can you show me the compile command in gcc.log for the
slp-mask-run-1.exe like bellow? I'd like to see the -march option on
your side.
Executing on host:
/work/home/lding/open-source/riscv-gnu-toolchain-push/build/dev-rv64gcv_zvfh_zfh-lp64d-medany-newlib-spike-debug/build-gcc-newli
Ok. Lehua is going to take care of this issue. He has reproduced it.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Robin Dapp
Date: 2023-11-13 17:31
To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; gcc-patches; palmer; kito.cheng; jeffreyalaw
CC: rdapp.gcc
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: testsuite: Fix 32-bit FAILs.
> I'm
> I'm going to configure with --with-arch=rv32gcv_zfh_zvfh --with-abi=ilp32d
> to see if there is any difference.
No change for me, how do you invoke the testsuite? I.e. Which target board?
Regards
Robin
> xgcc: fatal error: Cannot find suitable multilib set for
> '-march=rv32imafdcv_zicsr_zifencei_zfh_zfhmin_zve32f_zve32x_zve64d_zve64f_zve64x_zvl128b_zvl32b_zvl64b'/'-mabi=ilp32d'^M
> compilation terminated.^M
> compiler exited with status 1
> FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vmv-imm-run.c -O3 -
Also, I didn't enable multi-lib.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Robin Dapp
Date: 2023-11-13 16:52
To: 钟居哲; gcc-patches; palmer; kito.cheng; Jeff Law
CC: rdapp.gcc
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: testsuite: Fix 32-bit FAILs.
> FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/slp-mask-run-1.c -O3 -ftree-v
Law
CC: rdapp.gcc
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: testsuite: Fix 32-bit FAILs.
> FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/slp-mask-run-1.c -O3 -ftree-vectorize
> (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-run.c -std=c99 -O3
> -ftree-vectorize --param riscv-
> FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/slp-mask-run-1.c -O3 -ftree-vectorize
> (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-run.c -std=c99 -O3
> -ftree-vectorize --param riscv-autovec-preference=fixed-vlmax (test for
> excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/
Hi,
this patch fixes several more FAILs that would only show up in 32-bit runs.
Regards
Robin
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/binop/vmul-zvfh-run.c: Adjust.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/binop/vsub-zvfh-run.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autov
21 matches
Mail list logo
