On 04.04.2024 18:17, Oleksii wrote: > On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 17:43 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 04.04.2024 17:18, Oleksii wrote: >>> On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 12:07 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 03.04.2024 12:19, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>>>> --- a/xen/arch/riscv/arch.mk >>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/arch.mk >>>>> @@ -3,16 +3,27 @@ >>>>> >>>>> $(call cc-options-add,CFLAGS,CC,$(EMBEDDED_EXTRA_CFLAGS)) >>>>> >>>>> -CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_RISCV_64) += -mabi=lp64 >>>>> +riscv-abi-$(CONFIG_RISCV_32) := -mabi=ilp32 >>>>> +riscv-abi-$(CONFIG_RISCV_64) := -mabi=lp64 >>>>> >>>>> riscv-march-$(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_RV64G) := rv64g >>>>> riscv-march-$(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C) := $(riscv-march-y)c >>>>> >>>>> +riscv-generic-flags := $(riscv-abi-y) -march=$(riscv-march-y) >>>>> + >>>>> +zbb := $(call as-insn,$(CC) $(riscv-generic- >>>>> flags)_zbb,"",_zbb) >>>> >>>> While committing another question popped up: Why "" (i.e. no >>>> insn) >>>> here, ... >>>> >>>>> +zihintpause := $(call as-insn,\ >>>>> + $(CC) $(riscv-generic- >>>>> flags)_zihintpause,"pause",_zihintpause) >>>> >>>> ... but "pause" here? >>> >>> In the case of the Zbb extension, we don't check for a specific >>> instruction, but with the Zihintpause, the idea was to verify if >>> the >>> pause instruction is supported or not. >> >> And why's this verification relevant here, but not for Zbb? > It is not relevant and can be dropped.
Is it really not? Aren't you checking two things for Zihintpause (compiler and assembler support), while checking only one (compiler) for Zbb? Jan
