| Message ID | PAXPR08MB662191F7E4D6609AE867D8F0E4BC9@PAXPR08MB6621.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | arm: add armv9-a architecture to -march | expand |
Ping :) > -----Original Message----- > From: Przemyslaw Wirkus > Sent: 18 October 2021 10:37 > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Ramana > Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov > <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; nickc@redhat.com > Subject: [PATCH][GCC] arm: add armv9-a architecture to -march > > Hi, > > This patch is adding `armv9-a` to -march in Arm GCC. > > In this patch: > + Add `armv9-a` to -march. > + Update multilib with armv9-a and armv9-a+simd. > > After this patch three additional multilib directories are available: > > $ arm-none-eabi-gcc --print-multi-lib > .; > [...vanilla multi-lib dirs...] > thumb/v9-a/nofp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a@mfloat-abi=soft > thumb/v9-a+simd/softfp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat- > abi=softfp > thumb/v9-a+simd/hard;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat- > abi=hard > > New multi-lib directories under > $GCC_INSTALL_DIE/lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/12.0.0/thumb are created: > > thumb/ > +--- v9-a > | |--- nofp > | > +--- v9-a+simd > |--- hard > |--- softfp > > Regtested on arm-none-eabi cross and no issues. > > OK for master? > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * config/arm/arm-cpus.in (armv9): New define. > (ARMv9a): New group. > (armv9-a): New arch definition. > * config/arm/arm-tables.opt: Regenerate. > * config/arm/arm.h (BASE_ARCH_9A): New arch enum value. > * config/arm/t-aprofile: Added armv9-a and armv9+simd. > * config/arm/t-arm-elf: Added arm9-a, v9_fps and all_v9_archs > to MULTILIB_MATCHES. > * config/arm/t-multilib: Added v9_a_nosimd_variants and > v9_a_simd_variants to MULTILIB_MATCHES. > * doc/invoke.texi: Update docs. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * gcc.target/arm/multilib.exp: Update test with armv9-a entries. > * lib/target-supports.exp (v9a): Add new armflag. > (__ARM_ARCH_9A__): Add new armdef. > > -- > kind regards, > Przemyslaw Wirkus
Hi Przemek, > -----Original Message----- > From: Przemyslaw Wirkus <Przemyslaw.Wirkus@arm.com> > Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 10:34 AM > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Ramana > Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov > <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; nickc@redhat.com > Subject: RE: [PATCH][GCC] arm: add armv9-a architecture to -march > > Ping :) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Przemyslaw Wirkus > > Sent: 18 October 2021 10:37 > > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > > Cc: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Ramana > > Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov > > <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; nickc@redhat.com > > Subject: [PATCH][GCC] arm: add armv9-a architecture to -march > > > > Hi, > > > > This patch is adding `armv9-a` to -march in Arm GCC. > > > > In this patch: > > + Add `armv9-a` to -march. > > + Update multilib with armv9-a and armv9-a+simd. > > > > After this patch three additional multilib directories are available: > > > > $ arm-none-eabi-gcc --print-multi-lib > > .; > > [...vanilla multi-lib dirs...] > > thumb/v9-a/nofp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a@mfloat-abi=soft > > thumb/v9-a+simd/softfp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat- > > abi=softfp > > thumb/v9-a+simd/hard;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat- > > abi=hard > > > > New multi-lib directories under > > $GCC_INSTALL_DIE/lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/12.0.0/thumb are created: > > > > thumb/ > > +--- v9-a > > | |--- nofp > > | > > +--- v9-a+simd > > |--- hard > > |--- softfp > > > > Regtested on arm-none-eabi cross and no issues. > > > > OK for master? Ok. Thanks, Kyrill > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * config/arm/arm-cpus.in (armv9): New define. > > (ARMv9a): New group. > > (armv9-a): New arch definition. > > * config/arm/arm-tables.opt: Regenerate. > > * config/arm/arm.h (BASE_ARCH_9A): New arch enum value. > > * config/arm/t-aprofile: Added armv9-a and armv9+simd. > > * config/arm/t-arm-elf: Added arm9-a, v9_fps and all_v9_archs > > to MULTILIB_MATCHES. > > * config/arm/t-multilib: Added v9_a_nosimd_variants and > > v9_a_simd_variants to MULTILIB_MATCHES. > > * doc/invoke.texi: Update docs. > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > * gcc.target/arm/multilib.exp: Update test with armv9-a entries. > > * lib/target-supports.exp (v9a): Add new armflag. > > (__ARM_ARCH_9A__): Add new armdef. > > > > -- > > kind regards, > > Przemyslaw Wirkus
> > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Przemyslaw Wirkus > > > Sent: 18 October 2021 10:37 > > > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > > > Cc: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Ramana > > > Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov > > > <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; nickc@redhat.com > > > Subject: [PATCH][GCC] arm: add armv9-a architecture to -march > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > This patch is adding `armv9-a` to -march in Arm GCC. > > > > > > In this patch: > > > + Add `armv9-a` to -march. > > > + Update multilib with armv9-a and armv9-a+simd. > > > > > > After this patch three additional multilib directories are available: > > > > > > $ arm-none-eabi-gcc --print-multi-lib .; [...vanilla multi-lib > > > dirs...] thumb/v9-a/nofp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a@mfloat-abi=soft > > > thumb/v9-a+simd/softfp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat- > > > abi=softfp > > > thumb/v9-a+simd/hard;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat- > > > abi=hard > > > > > > New multi-lib directories under > > > $GCC_INSTALL_DIE/lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/12.0.0/thumb are created: > > > > > > thumb/ > > > +--- v9-a > > > | |--- nofp > > > | > > > +--- v9-a+simd > > > |--- hard > > > |--- softfp > > > > > > Regtested on arm-none-eabi cross and no issues. > > > > > > OK for master? Thanks. commit 32ba7860ccaddd5219e6dae94a3d0653e124c9dd > Ok. > Thanks, > Kyrill > > > > > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > > > * config/arm/arm-cpus.in (armv9): New define. > > > (ARMv9a): New group. > > > (armv9-a): New arch definition. > > > * config/arm/arm-tables.opt: Regenerate. > > > * config/arm/arm.h (BASE_ARCH_9A): New arch enum value. > > > * config/arm/t-aprofile: Added armv9-a and armv9+simd. > > > * config/arm/t-arm-elf: Added arm9-a, v9_fps and all_v9_archs > > > to MULTILIB_MATCHES. > > > * config/arm/t-multilib: Added v9_a_nosimd_variants and > > > v9_a_simd_variants to MULTILIB_MATCHES. > > > * doc/invoke.texi: Update docs. > > > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > > > * gcc.target/arm/multilib.exp: Update test with armv9-a entries. > > > * lib/target-supports.exp (v9a): Add new armflag. > > > (__ARM_ARCH_9A__): Add new armdef. > > > > > > -- > > > kind regards, > > > Przemyslaw Wirkus
Hi, On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 12:36 PM Przemyslaw Wirkus via Gcc-patches < gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Przemyslaw Wirkus > > > > Sent: 18 October 2021 10:37 > > > > To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > > > > Cc: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Ramana > > > > Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov > > > > <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; nickc@redhat.com > > > > Subject: [PATCH][GCC] arm: add armv9-a architecture to -march > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > This patch is adding `armv9-a` to -march in Arm GCC. > > > > > > > > In this patch: > > > > + Add `armv9-a` to -march. > > > > + Update multilib with armv9-a and armv9-a+simd. > > > > > > > > After this patch three additional multilib directories are available: > > > > > > > > $ arm-none-eabi-gcc --print-multi-lib .; [...vanilla multi-lib > > > > dirs...] thumb/v9-a/nofp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a@mfloat-abi=soft > > > > thumb/v9-a+simd/softfp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat- > > > > abi=softfp > > > > thumb/v9-a+simd/hard;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat- > > > > abi=hard > > > > > This is causing a GCC build failure when using "old" binutils (I'm using 2.36.1), because the new -march=armv9-a option is not supported. This breaks the multilib support. I don't remember how we handled similar cases in the past? Is that just "expected", and "current" GCC needs "current" binutils, or should we have a multilib list dependent on the actual binutils support? (I think this is not the case, and it sounds like an undesirable extra complication in an already overcrowded mutilib-Makefile) Christophe > > > New multi-lib directories under > > > > $GCC_INSTALL_DIE/lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/12.0.0/thumb are created: > > > > > > > > thumb/ > > > > +--- v9-a > > > > | |--- nofp > > > > | > > > > +--- v9-a+simd > > > > |--- hard > > > > |--- softfp > > > > > > > > Regtested on arm-none-eabi cross and no issues. > > > > > > > > OK for master? > > Thanks. > > commit 32ba7860ccaddd5219e6dae94a3d0653e124c9dd > > > Ok. > > Thanks, > > Kyrill > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > > > > > * config/arm/arm-cpus.in (armv9): New define. > > > > (ARMv9a): New group. > > > > (armv9-a): New arch definition. > > > > * config/arm/arm-tables.opt: Regenerate. > > > > * config/arm/arm.h (BASE_ARCH_9A): New arch enum value. > > > > * config/arm/t-aprofile: Added armv9-a and armv9+simd. > > > > * config/arm/t-arm-elf: Added arm9-a, v9_fps and all_v9_archs > > > > to MULTILIB_MATCHES. > > > > * config/arm/t-multilib: Added v9_a_nosimd_variants and > > > > v9_a_simd_variants to MULTILIB_MATCHES. > > > > * doc/invoke.texi: Update docs. > > > > > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > > > > > * gcc.target/arm/multilib.exp: Update test with armv9-a entries. > > > > * lib/target-supports.exp (v9a): Add new armflag. > > > > (__ARM_ARCH_9A__): Add new armdef. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > kind regards, > > > > Przemyslaw Wirkus > >
You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, as they say. New architectures need new assemblers. However, I wonder if there's anything in v9-a that significantly affects the quality of the base multilib code needed for building the libraries. It might be that we can deal with v9-a by just mapping it to the v8-a equivalents. That would then avoid the need for an updated assembler, and reduce the build time and install footprint. R. On 16/11/2021 08:03, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: > Hi, > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 12:36 PM Przemyslaw Wirkus via Gcc-patches < > gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Przemyslaw Wirkus >>>>> Sent: 18 October 2021 10:37 >>>>> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org >>>>> Cc: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Ramana >>>>> Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov >>>>> <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; nickc@redhat.com >>>>> Subject: [PATCH][GCC] arm: add armv9-a architecture to -march >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> This patch is adding `armv9-a` to -march in Arm GCC. >>>>> >>>>> In this patch: >>>>> + Add `armv9-a` to -march. >>>>> + Update multilib with armv9-a and armv9-a+simd. >>>>> >>>>> After this patch three additional multilib directories are available: >>>>> >>>>> $ arm-none-eabi-gcc --print-multi-lib .; [...vanilla multi-lib >>>>> dirs...] thumb/v9-a/nofp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a@mfloat-abi=soft >>>>> thumb/v9-a+simd/softfp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat- >>>>> abi=softfp >>>>> thumb/v9-a+simd/hard;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat- >>>>> abi=hard >>>>> >> > > This is causing a GCC build failure when using "old" binutils (I'm using > 2.36.1), > because the new -march=armv9-a option is not supported. This breaks the > multilib support. > > I don't remember how we handled similar cases in the past? Is that just > "expected", and > "current" GCC needs "current" binutils, or should we have a multilib list > dependent on > the actual binutils support? (I think this is not the case, and it sounds > like an undesirable > extra complication in an already overcrowded mutilib-Makefile) > > Christophe > >>>> New multi-lib directories under >>>>> $GCC_INSTALL_DIE/lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/12.0.0/thumb are created: >>>>> >>>>> thumb/ >>>>> +--- v9-a >>>>> | |--- nofp >>>>> | >>>>> +--- v9-a+simd >>>>> |--- hard >>>>> |--- softfp >>>>> >>>>> Regtested on arm-none-eabi cross and no issues. >>>>> >>>>> OK for master? >> >> Thanks. >> >> commit 32ba7860ccaddd5219e6dae94a3d0653e124c9dd >> >>> Ok. >>> Thanks, >>> Kyrill >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>>>> >>>>> * config/arm/arm-cpus.in (armv9): New define. >>>>> (ARMv9a): New group. >>>>> (armv9-a): New arch definition. >>>>> * config/arm/arm-tables.opt: Regenerate. >>>>> * config/arm/arm.h (BASE_ARCH_9A): New arch enum value. >>>>> * config/arm/t-aprofile: Added armv9-a and armv9+simd. >>>>> * config/arm/t-arm-elf: Added arm9-a, v9_fps and all_v9_archs >>>>> to MULTILIB_MATCHES. >>>>> * config/arm/t-multilib: Added v9_a_nosimd_variants and >>>>> v9_a_simd_variants to MULTILIB_MATCHES. >>>>> * doc/invoke.texi: Update docs. >>>>> >>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>>>> >>>>> * gcc.target/arm/multilib.exp: Update test with armv9-a entries. >>>>> * lib/target-supports.exp (v9a): Add new armflag. >>>>> (__ARM_ARCH_9A__): Add new armdef. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> kind regards, >>>>> Przemyslaw Wirkus >> >>
Hi There, I think for AArch32 mapping it back to armv8-a sounds sufficient. Unless we have string or math routines in newlib that make use of any ACLE guards that are beyond armv8-a … Ramana From: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> Date: Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 11:48 To: Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon.oss@gmail.com>, Przemyslaw Wirkus <Przemyslaw.Wirkus@arm.com> Cc: Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH][GCC] arm: add armv9-a architecture to -march You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, as they say. New architectures need new assemblers. However, I wonder if there's anything in v9-a that significantly affects the quality of the base multilib code needed for building the libraries. It might be that we can deal with v9-a by just mapping it to the v8-a equivalents. That would then avoid the need for an updated assembler, and reduce the build time and install footprint. R. On 16/11/2021 08:03, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: > Hi, > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 12:36 PM Przemyslaw Wirkus via Gcc-patches < > gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Przemyslaw Wirkus >>>>> Sent: 18 October 2021 10:37 >>>>> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org >>>>> Cc: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Ramana >>>>> Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov >>>>> <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; nickc@redhat.com >>>>> Subject: [PATCH][GCC] arm: add armv9-a architecture to -march >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> This patch is adding `armv9-a` to -march in Arm GCC. >>>>> >>>>> In this patch: >>>>> + Add `armv9-a` to -march. >>>>> + Update multilib with armv9-a and armv9-a+simd. >>>>> >>>>> After this patch three additional multilib directories are available: >>>>> >>>>> $ arm-none-eabi-gcc --print-multi-lib .; [...vanilla multi-lib >>>>> dirs...] thumb/v9-a/nofp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a@mfloat-abi=soft >>>>> thumb/v9-a+simd/softfp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat- >>>>> abi=softfp >>>>> thumb/v9-a+simd/hard;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat- >>>>> abi=hard >>>>> >> > > This is causing a GCC build failure when using "old" binutils (I'm using > 2.36.1), > because the new -march=armv9-a option is not supported. This breaks the > multilib support. > > I don't remember how we handled similar cases in the past? Is that just > "expected", and > "current" GCC needs "current" binutils, or should we have a multilib list > dependent on > the actual binutils support? (I think this is not the case, and it sounds > like an undesirable > extra complication in an already overcrowded mutilib-Makefile) > > Christophe > >>>> New multi-lib directories under >>>>> $GCC_INSTALL_DIE/lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/12.0.0/thumb are created: >>>>> >>>>> thumb/ >>>>> +--- v9-a >>>>> | |--- nofp >>>>> | >>>>> +--- v9-a+simd >>>>> |--- hard >>>>> |--- softfp >>>>> >>>>> Regtested on arm-none-eabi cross and no issues. >>>>> >>>>> OK for master? >> >> Thanks. >> >> commit 32ba7860ccaddd5219e6dae94a3d0653e124c9dd >> >>> Ok. >>> Thanks, >>> Kyrill >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>>>> >>>>> * config/arm/arm-cpus.in (armv9): New define. >>>>> (ARMv9a): New group. >>>>> (armv9-a): New arch definition. >>>>> * config/arm/arm-tables.opt: Regenerate. >>>>> * config/arm/arm.h (BASE_ARCH_9A): New arch enum value. >>>>> * config/arm/t-aprofile: Added armv9-a and armv9+simd. >>>>> * config/arm/t-arm-elf: Added arm9-a, v9_fps and all_v9_archs >>>>> to MULTILIB_MATCHES. >>>>> * config/arm/t-multilib: Added v9_a_nosimd_variants and >>>>> v9_a_simd_variants to MULTILIB_MATCHES. >>>>> * doc/invoke.texi: Update docs. >>>>> >>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>>>> >>>>> * gcc.target/arm/multilib.exp: Update test with armv9-a entries. >>>>> * lib/target-supports.exp (v9a): Add new armflag. >>>>> (__ARM_ARCH_9A__): Add new armdef. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> kind regards, >>>>> Przemyslaw Wirkus >> >>
Hi, Indeed I wasn't asking for a ~partial revert, rather making sure the new behaviour is intended: current GCC trunk won't build with A-profile multilibs unless using trunk binutils. We probably had the same situation when v8-a was introduced, just maybe I wasn't running CI with multilibs enabled at that time. Anyway, as Richard & Ramana said, if there is no real need for v9-a multilibs, dropping them would save build time and disk size. Thanks, Christophe On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 1:29 PM Ramana Radhakrishnan < Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com> wrote: > Hi There, > > > > I think for AArch32 mapping it back to armv8-a sounds sufficient. Unless > we have string or math routines in newlib that make use of any ACLE guards > that are beyond armv8-a … > > > > Ramana > > > > > > *From: *Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> > *Date: *Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 11:48 > *To: *Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon.oss@gmail.com>, Przemyslaw Wirkus < > Przemyslaw.Wirkus@arm.com> > *Cc: *Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>, > gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Richard Earnshaw < > Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com> > *Subject: *Re: [PATCH][GCC] arm: add armv9-a architecture to -march > > You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, as they say. New > architectures need new assemblers. > > However, I wonder if there's anything in v9-a that significantly affects > the quality of the base multilib code needed for building the libraries. > It might be that we can deal with v9-a by just mapping it to the v8-a > equivalents. That would then avoid the need for an updated assembler, > and reduce the build time and install footprint. > > R. > > > On 16/11/2021 08:03, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 12:36 PM Przemyslaw Wirkus via Gcc-patches < > > gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Przemyslaw Wirkus > >>>>> Sent: 18 October 2021 10:37 > >>>>> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > >>>>> Cc: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>; Ramana > >>>>> Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov > >>>>> <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>; nickc@redhat.com > >>>>> Subject: [PATCH][GCC] arm: add armv9-a architecture to -march > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> This patch is adding `armv9-a` to -march in Arm GCC. > >>>>> > >>>>> In this patch: > >>>>> + Add `armv9-a` to -march. > >>>>> + Update multilib with armv9-a and armv9-a+simd. > >>>>> > >>>>> After this patch three additional multilib directories are available: > >>>>> > >>>>> $ arm-none-eabi-gcc --print-multi-lib .; [...vanilla multi-lib > >>>>> dirs...] thumb/v9-a/nofp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a@mfloat-abi=soft > >>>>> thumb/v9-a+simd/softfp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat- > >>>>> abi=softfp > >>>>> thumb/v9-a+simd/hard;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat- > >>>>> abi=hard > >>>>> > >> > > > > This is causing a GCC build failure when using "old" binutils (I'm using > > 2.36.1), > > because the new -march=armv9-a option is not supported. This breaks the > > multilib support. > > > > I don't remember how we handled similar cases in the past? Is that just > > "expected", and > > "current" GCC needs "current" binutils, or should we have a multilib list > > dependent on > > the actual binutils support? (I think this is not the case, and it sounds > > like an undesirable > > extra complication in an already overcrowded mutilib-Makefile) > > > > Christophe > > > >>>> New multi-lib directories under > >>>>> $GCC_INSTALL_DIE/lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/12.0.0/thumb are created: > >>>>> > >>>>> thumb/ > >>>>> +--- v9-a > >>>>> | |--- nofp > >>>>> | > >>>>> +--- v9-a+simd > >>>>> |--- hard > >>>>> |--- softfp > >>>>> > >>>>> Regtested on arm-none-eabi cross and no issues. > >>>>> > >>>>> OK for master? > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> commit 32ba7860ccaddd5219e6dae94a3d0653e124c9dd > >> > >>> Ok. > >>> Thanks, > >>> Kyrill > >>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> gcc/ChangeLog: > >>>>> > >>>>> * config/arm/arm-cpus.in (armv9): New define. > >>>>> (ARMv9a): New group. > >>>>> (armv9-a): New arch definition. > >>>>> * config/arm/arm-tables.opt: Regenerate. > >>>>> * config/arm/arm.h (BASE_ARCH_9A): New arch enum value. > >>>>> * config/arm/t-aprofile: Added armv9-a and armv9+simd. > >>>>> * config/arm/t-arm-elf: Added arm9-a, v9_fps and all_v9_archs > >>>>> to MULTILIB_MATCHES. > >>>>> * config/arm/t-multilib: Added v9_a_nosimd_variants and > >>>>> v9_a_simd_variants to MULTILIB_MATCHES. > >>>>> * doc/invoke.texi: Update docs. > >>>>> > >>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > >>>>> > >>>>> * gcc.target/arm/multilib.exp: Update test with armv9-a entries. > >>>>> * lib/target-supports.exp (v9a): Add new armflag. > >>>>> (__ARM_ARCH_9A__): Add new armdef. > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> kind regards, > >>>>> Przemyslaw Wirkus > >> > >> >
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm-cpus.in b/gcc/config/arm/arm-cpus.in index d0d0d0f1c7e4176fc4aa30d82394fe938b083a59..3756ba56c6ea36fa9d017347bd73b27ab7752325 100644 --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm-cpus.in +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm-cpus.in @@ -132,6 +132,9 @@ define feature cmse # Architecture rel 8.1-M. define feature armv8_1m_main +# Architecture rel 9.0. +define feature armv9 + # Floating point and Neon extensions. # VFPv1 is not supported in GCC. @@ -293,6 +296,7 @@ define fgroup ARMv8m_base ARMv6m armv8 cmse tdiv define fgroup ARMv8m_main ARMv7m armv8 cmse define fgroup ARMv8r ARMv8a define fgroup ARMv8_1m_main ARMv8m_main armv8_1m_main +define fgroup ARMv9a ARMv8_5a armv9 # Useful combinations. define fgroup VFPv2 vfpv2 @@ -751,6 +755,21 @@ begin arch armv8.1-m.main option cdecp7 add cdecp7 end arch armv8.1-m.main +begin arch armv9-a + tune for cortex-a53 + tune flags CO_PROC + base 9A + profile A + isa ARMv9a + option simd add FP_ARMv8 DOTPROD + option fp16 add fp16 fp16fml FP_ARMv8 DOTPROD + option crypto add FP_ARMv8 CRYPTO DOTPROD + option nocrypto remove ALL_CRYPTO + option nofp remove ALL_FP + option i8mm add i8mm FP_ARMv8 DOTPROD + option bf16 add bf16 FP_ARMv8 DOTPROD +end arch armv9-a + begin arch iwmmxt tune for iwmmxt tune flags LDSCHED STRONG XSCALE diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm-tables.opt b/gcc/config/arm/arm-tables.opt index 8bb0c9f6a7bd9230e7b2de1e2ef4ed5177f89495..c00e252ec5aa0f1a9004718dbea3cf969a4e5be6 100644 --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm-tables.opt +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm-tables.opt @@ -383,10 +383,13 @@ EnumValue Enum(arm_arch) String(armv8.1-m.main) Value(30) EnumValue -Enum(arm_arch) String(iwmmxt) Value(31) +Enum(arm_arch) String(armv9-a) Value(31) EnumValue -Enum(arm_arch) String(iwmmxt2) Value(32) +Enum(arm_arch) String(iwmmxt) Value(32) + +EnumValue +Enum(arm_arch) String(iwmmxt2) Value(33) Enum Name(arm_fpu) Type(enum fpu_type) diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.h b/gcc/config/arm/arm.h index 015299c15346f1bea59d70fdcb1d19545473b23b..3a8d223ee622ffe5b25e14ed07bfaa07835dc683 100644 --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.h +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.h @@ -452,7 +452,8 @@ enum base_architecture BASE_ARCH_8A = 8, BASE_ARCH_8M_BASE = 8, BASE_ARCH_8M_MAIN = 8, - BASE_ARCH_8R = 8 + BASE_ARCH_8R = 8, + BASE_ARCH_9A = 9 }; /* The major revision number of the ARM Architecture implemented by the target. */ diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/t-aprofile b/gcc/config/arm/t-aprofile index 8574ac3e24d0d67c12bae5f88d1410ec1e0f983d..68e2251c7266712177723a7d634016f4fddaacac 100644 --- a/gcc/config/arm/t-aprofile +++ b/gcc/config/arm/t-aprofile @@ -26,8 +26,8 @@ # Arch and FPU variants to build libraries with -MULTI_ARCH_OPTS_A = march=armv7-a/march=armv7-a+fp/march=armv7-a+simd/march=armv7ve+simd/march=armv8-a/march=armv8-a+simd -MULTI_ARCH_DIRS_A = v7-a v7-a+fp v7-a+simd v7ve+simd v8-a v8-a+simd +MULTI_ARCH_OPTS_A = march=armv7-a/march=armv7-a+fp/march=armv7-a+simd/march=armv7ve+simd/march=armv8-a/march=armv8-a+simd/march=armv9-a/march=armv9-a+simd +MULTI_ARCH_DIRS_A = v7-a v7-a+fp v7-a+simd v7ve+simd v8-a v8-a+simd v9-a v9-a+simd # ARMv7-A - build nofp, fp-d16 and SIMD variants @@ -46,6 +46,11 @@ MULTILIB_REQUIRED += mthumb/march=armv8-a/mfloat-abi=soft MULTILIB_REQUIRED += mthumb/march=armv8-a+simd/mfloat-abi=hard MULTILIB_REQUIRED += mthumb/march=armv8-a+simd/mfloat-abi=softfp +# Armv9-A - build nofp and SIMD variants. +MULTILIB_REQUIRED += mthumb/march=armv9-a/mfloat-abi=soft +MULTILIB_REQUIRED += mthumb/march=armv9-a+simd/mfloat-abi=hard +MULTILIB_REQUIRED += mthumb/march=armv9-a+simd/mfloat-abi=softfp + # Matches # Arch Matches @@ -129,17 +134,29 @@ MULTILIB_MATCHES += march?armv8-a=march?armv8.6-a MULTILIB_MATCHES += $(foreach ARCH, $(v8_6_a_simd_variants), \ march?armv8-a+simd=march?armv8.6-a$(ARCH)) +# Armv9 without SIMD: map down to base architecture +MULTILIB_MATCHES += $(foreach ARCH, $(v9_a_nosimd_variants), \ + march?armv9-a=march?armv9-a$(ARCH)) + +# Armv9 with SIMD: map down to base arch + simd +MULTILIB_MATCHES += march?armv9-a+simd=march?armv9-a+crc+simd \ + $(foreach ARCH, $(filter-out +simd, $(v9_a_simd_variants)), \ + march?armv9-a+simd=march?armv9-a$(ARCH) \ + march?armv9-a+simd=march?armv9-a+crc$(ARCH)) + # Use Thumb libraries for everything. MULTILIB_REUSE += mthumb/march.armv7-a/mfloat-abi.soft=marm/march.armv7-a/mfloat-abi.soft MULTILIB_REUSE += mthumb/march.armv8-a/mfloat-abi.soft=marm/march.armv8-a/mfloat-abi.soft +MULTILIB_REUSE += mthumb/march.armv9-a/mfloat-abi.soft=marm/march.armv9-a/mfloat-abi.soft + MULTILIB_REUSE += $(foreach ABI, hard softfp, \ - $(foreach ARCH, armv7-a+fp armv7-a+simd armv7ve+simd armv8-a+simd, \ + $(foreach ARCH, armv7-a+fp armv7-a+simd armv7ve+simd armv8-a+simd armv9-a+simd, \ mthumb/march.$(ARCH)/mfloat-abi.$(ABI)=marm/march.$(ARCH)/mfloat-abi.$(ABI))) # Softfp but no FP, use the soft-float libraries. MULTILIB_REUSE += $(foreach MODE, arm thumb, \ - $(foreach ARCH, armv7-a armv8-a, \ + $(foreach ARCH, armv7-a armv8-a armv9-a, \ mthumb/march.$(ARCH)/mfloat-abi.soft=m$(MODE)/march.$(ARCH)/mfloat-abi.softfp)) diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/t-arm-elf b/gcc/config/arm/t-arm-elf index d68def30867253d13f1bc1687ed57559b54b5793..b3a900e8cb308f5ddb49af5a944ae894543a9382 100644 --- a/gcc/config/arm/t-arm-elf +++ b/gcc/config/arm/t-arm-elf @@ -38,6 +38,8 @@ v7ve_fps := vfpv3-d16 vfpv3 vfpv3-d16-fp16 vfpv3-fp16 vfpv4 neon \ # it seems to work ok. v8_fps := simd fp16 crypto fp16+crypto dotprod fp16fml +v9_fps := simd fp16 crypto fp16+crypto dotprod fp16fml + # We don't do anything special with these. Pre-v4t probably doesn't work. all_early_nofp := armv4 armv4t armv5t @@ -49,6 +51,8 @@ all_v7_a_r := armv7-a armv7ve armv7-r all_v8_archs := armv8-a armv8-a+crc armv8.1-a armv8.2-a armv8.3-a armv8.4-a \ armv8.5-a armv8.6-a +all_v9_archs := armv9-a + # No floating point variants, require thumb1 softfp all_nofp_t := armv6-m armv6s-m armv8-m.base @@ -110,6 +114,11 @@ MULTILIB_MATCHES += $(foreach ARCH, $(all_v8_archs), \ $(foreach FPARCH, $(v8_fps), \ march?armv7+fp=march?$(ARCH)+$(FPARCH))) +MULTILIB_MATCHES += $(foreach ARCH, $(all_v9_archs), \ + march?armv7+fp=march?$(ARCH) \ + $(foreach FPARCH, $(v9_fps), \ + march?armv7+fp=march?$(ARCH)+$(FPARCH))) + MULTILIB_MATCHES += $(foreach ARCH, armv7e-m armv8-m.mainline, \ march?armv7+fp=march?$(ARCH)+fp.dp) diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/t-multilib b/gcc/config/arm/t-multilib index ddc5033bf2ff08ac6e1979be3f09bb0fd8e4b470..d789b86ee22460ae8b3d05ef50be8b56563c104e 100644 --- a/gcc/config/arm/t-multilib +++ b/gcc/config/arm/t-multilib @@ -78,6 +78,8 @@ v8_4_a_simd_variants := $(call all_feat_combs, simd fp16 crypto i8mm bf16) v8_5_a_simd_variants := $(call all_feat_combs, simd fp16 crypto i8mm bf16) v8_6_a_simd_variants := $(call all_feat_combs, simd fp16 crypto i8mm bf16) v8_r_nosimd_variants := +crc +v9_a_nosimd_variants := +crc +v9_a_simd_variants := $(call all_feat_combs, simd fp16 crypto i8mm bf16) ifneq (,$(HAS_APROFILE)) include $(srcdir)/config/arm/t-aprofile @@ -202,6 +204,16 @@ MULTILIB_MATCHES += march?armv7=march?armv8.6-a MULTILIB_MATCHES += $(foreach ARCH, $(v8_6_a_simd_variants), \ march?armv7+fp=march?armv8.6-a$(ARCH)) +# Armv9 +MULTILIB_MATCHES += march?armv7=march?armv9-a +MULTILIB_MATCHES += $(foreach ARCH, $(v9_a_nosimd_variants), \ + march?armv7=march?armv9-a$(ARCH)) + +# Armv9 with SIMD +MULTILIB_MATCHES += march?armv7+fp=march?armv9-a+crc+simd \ + $(foreach ARCH, $(v9_a_simd_variants), \ + march?armv7+fp=march?armv9-a$(ARCH) \ + march?armv7+fp=march?armv9-a+crc$(ARCH)) endif # Not APROFILE. # Use Thumb libraries for everything. diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi index b7a2c8576739534fca4b312133720729009e3517..ce738e830a948016d89e456539fef5f5b18688fb 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi @@ -19994,6 +19994,7 @@ Permissible names are: @samp{armv7-m}, @samp{armv7e-m}, @samp{armv8-m.base}, @samp{armv8-m.main}, @samp{armv8.1-m.main}, +@samp{armv9-a}, @samp{iwmmxt} and @samp{iwmmxt2}. Additionally, the following architectures, which lack support for the diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/multilib.exp b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/multilib.exp index 4b30025db8cbdcd37bbb3a0be6c345b9d48818c4..e3f06c31690d1a027e19ef7a789f6c29ee781f3d 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/multilib.exp +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/multilib.exp @@ -135,6 +135,14 @@ if {[multilib_config "aprofile"] } { {-march=armv8.6-a+simd+fp16 -mfloat-abi=softfp} "thumb/v8-a+simd/softfp" {-march=armv8.6-a+simd+fp16+nofp -mfloat-abi=softfp} "thumb/v8-a/nofp" {-march=armv8.6-a+simd+nofp+fp16 -mfloat-abi=softfp} "thumb/v8-a+simd/softfp" + {-march=armv9-a+crypto -mfloat-abi=soft} "thumb/v9-a/nofp" + {-march=armv9-a+simd+crypto -mfloat-abi=softfp} "thumb/v9-a+simd/softfp" + {-march=armv9-a+simd+crypto+nofp -mfloat-abi=softfp} "thumb/v9-a/nofp" + {-march=armv9-a+simd+nofp+crypto -mfloat-abi=softfp} "thumb/v9-a+simd/softfp" + {-march=armv9-a+fp16 -mfloat-abi=soft} "thumb/v9-a/nofp" + {-march=armv9-a+simd+fp16 -mfloat-abi=softfp} "thumb/v9-a+simd/softfp" + {-march=armv9-a+simd+fp16+nofp -mfloat-abi=softfp} "thumb/v9-a/nofp" + {-march=armv9-a+simd+nofp+fp16 -mfloat-abi=softfp} "thumb/v9-a+simd/softfp" {-mcpu=cortex-a53+crypto -mfloat-abi=hard} "thumb/v8-a+simd/hard" {-mcpu=cortex-a53+nofp -mfloat-abi=softfp} "thumb/v8-a/nofp" {-march=armv8-a+crc -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=vfp} "thumb/v8-a+simd/hard" diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp index 9ebca7ac007363d2a35158bb80092118f629b97b..737f32f4fa6ced8341901fa8bc1c64ced6f6e918 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp @@ -4848,7 +4848,8 @@ foreach { armfunc armflag armdefs } { v8m_base "-march=armv8-m.base -mthumb -mfloat-abi=soft" __ARM_ARCH_8M_BASE__ v8m_main "-march=armv8-m.main -mthumb" __ARM_ARCH_8M_MAIN__ - v8_1m_main "-march=armv8.1-m.main -mthumb" __ARM_ARCH_8M_MAIN__ } { + v8_1m_main "-march=armv8.1-m.main -mthumb" __ARM_ARCH_8M_MAIN__ + v9a "-march=armv9-a" __ARM_ARCH_9A__ } { eval [string map [list FUNC $armfunc FLAG $armflag DEFS $armdefs ] { proc check_effective_target_arm_arch_FUNC_ok { } { return [check_no_compiler_messages arm_arch_FUNC_ok assembly {
Hi, This patch is adding `armv9-a` to -march in Arm GCC. In this patch: + Add `armv9-a` to -march. + Update multilib with armv9-a and armv9-a+simd. After this patch three additional multilib directories are available: $ arm-none-eabi-gcc --print-multi-lib .; [...vanilla multi-lib dirs...] thumb/v9-a/nofp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a@mfloat-abi=soft thumb/v9-a+simd/softfp;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat-abi=softfp thumb/v9-a+simd/hard;@mthumb@march=armv9-a+simd@mfloat-abi=hard New multi-lib directories under $GCC_INSTALL_DIE/lib/gcc/arm-none-eabi/12.0.0/thumb are created: thumb/ +--- v9-a | |--- nofp | +--- v9-a+simd |--- hard |--- softfp Regtested on arm-none-eabi cross and no issues. OK for master? gcc/ChangeLog: * config/arm/arm-cpus.in (armv9): New define. (ARMv9a): New group. (armv9-a): New arch definition. * config/arm/arm-tables.opt: Regenerate. * config/arm/arm.h (BASE_ARCH_9A): New arch enum value. * config/arm/t-aprofile: Added armv9-a and armv9+simd. * config/arm/t-arm-elf: Added arm9-a, v9_fps and all_v9_archs to MULTILIB_MATCHES. * config/arm/t-multilib: Added v9_a_nosimd_variants and v9_a_simd_variants to MULTILIB_MATCHES. * doc/invoke.texi: Update docs. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gcc.target/arm/multilib.exp: Update test with armv9-a entries. * lib/target-supports.exp (v9a): Add new armflag. (__ARM_ARCH_9A__): Add new armdef.