On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 7:56 AM Richard Earnshaw (lists)
<richard.earns...@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 17/02/2020 15:42, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <richard.earns...@arm.com> writes:
> >> On 14/02/2020 10:41, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 2:12 AM Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> >>> <richard.earns...@arm.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 14/02/2020 03:18, apin...@marvell.com wrote:
> >>>>> From: Andrew Pinski <apin...@marvell.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Right if someone supplies a -mcpu= option and then overrides
> >>>>> that option with -march=*, we get a warning when they conflict.
> >>>>> What we need is a generic cpu for each arch level but that is not
> >>>>> that useful because the only difference would be the arch level.
> >>>>> The best option is to allow -mcpu=generic -march=armv8.5-a not to
> >>>>> warn and that is now a generic armv8.5-a arch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Then they should use -mtune=generic, rather than -mcpu.
> >>>
> >>> Does it make sense to run:
> >>> "make check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/{,-mcpu=octeontx2}"
> >>> to make sure there are no latent bugs floating around with slightly
> >>> different tuning/scheduling?
> >>> The majority of the aarch64.exp failures are due to that warning.
> >>> If not how would suggest to test a -mcpu= option?
> >>>
> >>> There is another use case:
> >>> A specific object file is to be run only on armv8.5-a processors but
> >>> someone sets CFLAGS to include -mcpu=octeontx2.
> >>> How would you suggest going about handling this case?
> >>>
> >>> These are the two major cases where having a -mcpu=generic which
> >>> overrides a previous -mcpu= option and still able to select a higher
> >>> -march= option.
> >>>
> >>
> >> -mcpu=generic should behave *exactly* the same way as specifying the CPU
> >> you have, so to take an example, if your cpu is a Cortex-A72, then
> >> -mcpu=generic and -mcpu=cortex-a72 should result in exactly the same
> >> compiler output and diagnostics should be generated as if you'd
> >> specified the latter. Changing the behaviour just for generic therefore
> >> does not make sense.
> >
> > Are you sure? That sounds more like -mcpu=native than -mcpu=generic.
> >
> > AFAICT, -mcpu=generic always selects base Armv8 with generic tuning (i.e.
> > the
> > default choice for default configure-time arguments).
> >
> > It sounds like the use case here is to nullify the effect of a previous
> > -mcpu,
> > a bit like "-mno-cpu" would if it was allowed. If so, I guess that would
> > need
> > to be a new option. But could you test using:
> >
> > "make check
> > RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/{,-march=armv8.2-a+.../-mtune=octeontx2}"
> >
> > instead? It's more awkward to specify, but probably easier than making sure
> > that the "-mno-cpu" equivalent is used in every test that needs it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Richard
> >
>
> My apologies, yes, you're right. I was thinking about 'native' rather
> than generic.
>
> However, the real problem is that -mcpu=generic is (and always has been)
> misnamed. Generic what? What it should have is an architecture version
> in the name directly, so generic-armv8-a, generic-armv8.1-a, etc.
Then how about we add those (keeping generic as ARMv8-a though). Is
adding those a good idea?
Something like:
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
index b58aca652b2..d9e42c790f8 100644
--- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
+++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
@@ -1278,6 +1278,10 @@ static const struct processor all_cores[] =
#include "aarch64-cores.def"
{"generic", generic, cortexa53, AARCH64_ARCH_8A, 8,
AARCH64_FL_FOR_ARCH8, &generic_tunings},
+#define AARCH64_ARCH(NAME, CORE, ARCH_IDENT, ARCH_REV, FLAGS) \
+ {"generic-" NAME, CORE, cortexa53, AARCH64_ARCH_##ARCH_IDENT, \
+ ARCH_REV, FLAGS, &generic_tunings },
+#include "aarch64-arches.def"
{NULL, aarch64_none, aarch64_none, aarch64_no_arch, 0, 0, NULL}
};
Will add "generic-armv8.1-a", etc. And then we can use that in the testsuite.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> R.
