From patchwork Sun Feb 21 00:08:58 2021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Marcus Comstedt X-Patchwork-Id: 1442669 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gcc.gnu.org (client-ip=8.43.85.97; helo=sourceware.org; envelope-from=gcc-patches-bounces@gcc.gnu.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=mc.pp.se header.i=@mc.pp.se header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=hedgehog header.b=HlnEwW+8; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Djlzm4CvMz9sRf for ; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:09:22 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75FCA3851C0D; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 00:09:17 +0000 (GMT) X-Original-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Received: from bahamut.mc.pp.se (bahamut.mc.pp.se [IPv6:2001:470:dcd3:1:214:4fff:fe97:7322]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACBC03857C7A for ; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 00:09:15 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org ACBC03857C7A Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=mc.pp.se Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=marcus@mc.pp.se Received: from hakua (hakua [192.168.42.40]) by bahamut.mc.pp.se (Postfix) with SMTP id ED9E5A2BC0 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 01:09:12 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=mc.pp.se; s=hedgehog; t=1613866153; bh=n1cFtHPkDZhzSxBnv6ZcfzSVgiH6QXVt8qn8PS6kaMc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-Id:MIME-Version: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=HlnEwW+82GYucp8gij0OiuU9qNAFkn2EUlZSY FHUT/HnBtzPGf7Mdhl28grJFrXpBbkweuSKAraRgIzvy0WcGP8uyqV+r27rLdb/5gXV Om8HcOZSVuz0FZMk2e8euP6LQXBkIvVuy8Q9yaGoEFKmX1d6S7Hl0QFrEyE7BLD36a4 = Received: by hakua (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 21 Feb 2021 01:09:12 +0100 From: "Marcus Comstedt" To: GCC Patches Subject: [PATCH v2 0/5] RISC-V big endian support Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 01:08:58 +0100 Message-Id: <20210221000903.32039-1-marcus@mc.pp.se> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.26.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gcc-patches-bounces@gcc.gnu.org Sender: "Gcc-patches" This is an update to the patch series for big endian RISC-V support. Changes since last version: * Added documentation of -mbig-endian and -mlittle-endian * New patch: Fix soft-fp endianness setting * New patch: Fix trampoline generation on big endian * New patch: Update the shift-shift-5.c testcase to work correctly on big endian With these changes, and two fixes to newlib (setting correct floating point byteorder, and an update to the handcoded assembler for strcmp), I'm now down to ========= Summary of gcc testsuite ========= | # of unexpected case / # of unique unexpected case | gcc | g++ | gfortran | rv64gc/ lp64/ medlow | 14 / 8 | 39 / 10 | - | and of these only two failures do not also occur for little endian: FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/shift-and-1.c scan-assembler-not andi FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/shift-and-2.c scan-assembler-not andi I'm quite puzzled why these two testcases give different results with -mbig-endian compared to with -mlittle-endian though, since they only deal with register-to-register operations so the memory model should be completely irrelevant... // Marcus