On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 16:52:25 PDT (-0700), juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
These cases actually doesn't care about -mabi, they just need 'v' in -march.
Can you tell me how to fix these testcases for "fails on targets without
ilp32d" ?
These failures are bogus failures since if you specify -mabi=ilp32d when you are using
GNU toolchain which is build up with "--arch=ilp32" let say.
It will fail. Report there is no "ilp32d". So I fix these testcase by replacing "ilp32d"
into "ilp32".
So the problem is this just moves the failures around, rather than
failing on toolchains that lack ilp32d support it'll fail on toolchains
that lack ilp32 support. The ABI naming scheme sort of makes them look
like extensions, but they're just incompatible with each other.
I can see a handful of ways to fix this:
* Add some sort of automatic ABI scheme to GCC. LLVM already does this
and there was a GCC patch for it that had some issues, but IMO having
something like -mabi=auto-{min,max} would be useful as users keep
running into this problem. We could also add something to DejaGNU
that does this.
* Add some sort of -march=+v to GCC, along the lines of the .option
arch,+v stuff in assembly but from the command line. I seem to
remember proposals for that floating around somewhere, but can't find
anything. This could probably also to DejaGNU.
* Decorate all these V functions with the +arch attributes. That
wouldn't require any compiler changes, but it's kind of clunky.
* Add some sort of test suite logic (maybe in DejaGNU?) to check and see
if the desired ABI is linkable before attempting to do so. That might
be generically useful.
Thank you.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Palmer Dabbelt
Date: 2022-11-01 06:30
To: gcc-patches
CC: juzhe.zhong; gcc-patches; schwab; Kito Cheng
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Fix RVV testcases.
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 15:00:49 PDT (-0700), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
On 10/30/22 19:40, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
From: Ju-Zhe Zhong <juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai>
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/abi-2.c: Change ilp32d to ilp32.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/abi-3.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/abi-4.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/abi-5.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/abi-6.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/abi-7.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-1.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-10.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-11.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-12.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-13.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-2.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-3.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-4.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-5.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-6.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-7.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-8.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-9.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/pragma-1.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/user-1.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/user-2.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/user-3.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/user-4.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/user-5.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/user-6.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsetvl-1.c: Ditto.
I'm pretty new to the RISC-V world, but don't some of the cases
(particularly the abi-* tests) verify that the ABI specification does
not override the arch specification WRT availability of types?
I think that depends on what the ABI specification says here, as it
could really go many ways. Most of the RISC-V targets just use -mabi to
control how arguments end up passed in functions, not the availability
of types. I can't find the ABI spec for these, though, so I'm not
entirely sure how they're supposed to work...
That said, I'm not sure why we need any of these -mabi changes? Just
from spot checking some of the examples it doesn't look like there
should be any functional difference between ilp32 and ilp32d here:
-march is always specified so ilp32d looks valid. If this is just to
fix the "fails on targets without ilp32d" [1], then IMO it's not really
a fix: we're essentially just changing that to "fails on targets without
ilp32", we either need some sort of automatic march/mabi setting or a
dependency on the availiable multilibs. Some of these can probably
avoid linking, but we'll have execution tests at some point.
1: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/604644.html
