Thanks Kyrill! I will be happy to test the gcc-8 back-port of the patches.
We would also need to back-port the patches to gcc-7. I hope it is ok to commit the changes to the gcc-7 branch even if it is not a maintained branch. Sebastian On 4/1/20, 9:27 AM, "Kyrylo Tkachov" <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Adding gcc-patches as I had somehow deleted it from the addresses... > -----Original Message----- > From: Kyrylo Tkachov > Sent: 01 April 2020 15:23 > To: Pop, Sebastian <s...@amazon.com> > Cc: Wilco Dijkstra <wilco.dijks...@arm.com>; richard.hender...@linaro.org > Subject: RE: [AArch64] Backporting -moutline-atomics to gcc 9.x and 8.x > > Hi Sebastian, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gcc-patches <gcc-patches-boun...@gcc.gnu.org> On Behalf Of Pop, > > Sebastian via Gcc-patches > > Sent: 31 March 2020 16:47 > > To: Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com>; > > gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > > Cc: Wilco Dijkstra <wilco.dijks...@arm.com>; > > richard.hender...@linaro.org > > Subject: Re: [AArch64] Backporting -moutline-atomics to gcc 9.x and > > 8.x > > > > Ping, can we have the -moutline-atomics patches committed to the gcc-9 > > branch? > > Thanks for testing the patches. > > > > > Thanks, > > Sebastian > > > > On 3/24/20, 7:24 PM, "Pop, Sebastian" <s...@amazon.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Kyrill, > > > > Thanks for pointing out the two missing bug fixes. > > Please see attached all the back-ported patches. > > All the patches from trunk applied cleanly with no conflicts > > (except for the ChangeLog files) to the gcc-9 branch. > > An up to date gcc-9 branch on which I applied the attached patches > > has passed bootstrap on aarch64-linux (Graviton2 with 64 N1 cores) and > > make check with no extra fails. > > Kyrill, could you please commit the attached patches to the gcc-9 branch? > > This series also needs Jakub's recent fix: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc- > patches/2020-March/542952.html > I've tested this together with the rest and committed the whole series to the > gcc-9 branch. > > > > > As we still don't have a copyright assignment on file, would it be > > possible for ARM to finish the backport to the gcc-8 branch of these > > patches and the atomics cleanup patches mentioned below? > > I can help with that, but any help with testing the patch set would be > appreciated. > Thanks, > Kyrill > > > > > I did a `git log config/aarch64/atomics.md` and there is a > > follow-up patch to the atomics cleanup patches: > > > > commit e21679a8bb17aac603b8704891e60ac502200629 > > Author: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> > > Date: Wed Nov 21 17:41:03 2018 +0100 > > > > re PR target/87839 (ICE in final_scan_insn_1, at final.c:3070) > > > > PR target/87839 > > * config/aarch64/atomics.md > > (@aarch64_compare_and_swap<mode>): Use > > rIJ constraint for aarch64_plus_operand rather than rn. > > > > * gcc.target/aarch64/pr87839.c: New test. > > > > From-SVN: r266346 > > > > That is fixing code modified in this cleanup patch: > > > > commit d400fda3a8c3330f77eb9d51874f5482d3819a9f > > Author: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> > > Date: Wed Oct 31 09:42:39 2018 +0000 > > > > aarch64: Improve cas generation > > > > > > Thanks, > > Sebastian > > > > > > On 3/11/20, 5:11 AM, "Kyrill Tkachov" > > <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> > > wrote: > > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the > > organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can > > confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > > > > > Hi Sebastian, > > > > On 3/9/20 9:47 PM, Pop, Sebastian wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Please see attached the patches to add -moutline-atomics to > > the gcc-9 branch. > > > Tested on graviton2 aarch64-linux with bootstrap and > > > `make check` passes with no new fails. > > > Tested `make check` on glibc built with gcc-9 with and > > without "- moutline-atomics" > > > and CFLAGS=" -O2 -g -fno-stack-protector -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE". > > > > > > Ok to commit to gcc-9 branch? > > > > Since this feature enables backwards-compatible deployment of LSE > > atomics, I'd support that. > > > > That is okay with me in principle after GCC 9.3 is released (the branch > > is currently frozen). > > > > However, there have been a few follow-up patches to fix some bugs > > revealed by testing. > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91833 > > > > and > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91834 > > > > come to mind. > > > > Can you please make sure the fixes for those are included as well? > > > > > > > > > > Does this mechanical `git am *.patch` require a copyright assignment? > > > I am still working with my employer on getting the FSF > > assignment signed. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Sebastian > > > > > > PS: For gcc-8 backports there are 5 cleanup and improvement > patches > > > that are needed for -moutline-atomics patches to apply cleanly. > > > Should these patches be back-ported in the same time as the > > flag patches, > > > or should I update the patches to apply to the older code base? > > > > Hmm... normally I'd be for them. In this case I'd want to make sure > that > > there aren't any fallout fixes that we're missing. > > > > Did these patches have any bug reports against them? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Kyrill > > > > > > > Here is the list of the extra patches: > > > > > > From 77f33f44baf24c22848197aa80962c003dd7b3e2 Mon Sep 17 > > 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> > > > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 09:29:29 +0000 > > > Subject: [PATCH] aarch64: Simplify LSE cas generation > > > > > > The cas insn is a single insn, and if expanded properly need not > > > be split after reload. Use the proper inputs for the insn. > > > > > > * config/aarch64/aarch64.c > > (aarch64_expand_compare_and_swap): > > > Force oldval into the rval register for TARGET_LSE; emit the > > compare > > > during initial expansion so that it may be deleted if unused. > > > (aarch64_gen_atomic_cas): Remove. > > > * config/aarch64/atomics.md > > (@aarch64_compare_and_swap<SHORT>_lse): > > > Change =&r to +r for operand 0; use match_dup for operand 2; > > > remove is_weak and mod_f operands as unused. Drop the split > > > and merge with... > > > (@aarch64_atomic_cas<SHORT>): ... this pattern's output; > > remove. > > > (@aarch64_compare_and_swap<GPI>_lse): Similarly. > > > (@aarch64_atomic_cas<GPI>): Similarly. > > > > > > From-SVN: r265656 > > > > > > From d400fda3a8c3330f77eb9d51874f5482d3819a9f Mon Sep 17 > > 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> > > > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 09:42:39 +0000 > > > Subject: [PATCH] aarch64: Improve cas generation > > > > > > Do not zero-extend the input to the cas for subword operations; > > > instead, use the appropriate zero-extending compare insns. > > > Correct the predicates and constraints for immediate > > expected operand. > > > > > > * config/aarch64/aarch64.c > > (aarch64_gen_compare_reg_maybe_ze): New. > > > (aarch64_split_compare_and_swap): Use it. > > > (aarch64_expand_compare_and_swap): Likewise. Remove > > convert_modes; > > > test oldval against the proper predicate. > > > * config/aarch64/atomics.md > > (@atomic_compare_and_swap<ALLI>): > > > Use nonmemory_operand for expected. > > > (cas_short_expected_pred): New. > > > (@aarch64_compare_and_swap<SHORT>): Use it; use "rn" not > > "rI" to match. > > > (@aarch64_compare_and_swap<GPI>): Use "rn" not "rI" for > > expected. > > > * config/aarch64/predicates.md (aarch64_plushi_immediate): > > New. > > > (aarch64_plushi_operand): New. > > > > > > From-SVN: r265657 > > > > > > From 8f5603d363a4e0453d2c38c7103aeb0bdca85c4e Mon Sep 17 > > 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> > > > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 09:47:21 +0000 > > > Subject: [PATCH] aarch64: Improve swp generation > > > > > > Allow zero as an input; fix constraints; avoid unnecessary split. > > > > > > * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_emit_atomic_swap): > > Remove. > > > (aarch64_gen_atomic_ldop): Don't call it. > > > * config/aarch64/atomics.md (atomic_exchange<ALLI>): > > > Use aarch64_reg_or_zero. > > > (aarch64_atomic_exchange<ALLI>): Likewise. > > > (aarch64_atomic_exchange<ALLI>_lse): Remove split; remove & > > from > > > operand 0; use aarch64_reg_or_zero for input; merge ... > > > (@aarch64_atomic_swp<ALLI>): ... this and remove. > > > > > > From-SVN: r265659 > > > > > > From 7803ec5ee2a547043fb6708a08ddb1361ba91202 Mon Sep 17 > > 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> > > > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 09:58:48 +0000 > > > Subject: [PATCH] aarch64: Improve atomic-op lse generation > > > > > > Fix constraints; avoid unnecessary split. Drop the use of the > atomic_op > > > iterator in favor of the ATOMIC_LDOP iterator; this is > > simplier and more > > > logical for ldclr aka bic. > > > > > > * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_emit_bic): Remove. > > > (aarch64_atomic_ldop_supported_p): Remove. > > > (aarch64_gen_atomic_ldop): Remove. > > > * config/aarch64/atomic.md (atomic_<atomic_optab><ALLI>): > > > Fully expand LSE operations here. > > > (atomic_fetch_<atomic_optab><ALLI>): Likewise. > > > (atomic_<atomic_optab>_fetch<ALLI>): Likewise. > > > (aarch64_atomic_<ATOMIC_LDOP><ALLI>_lse): Drop atomic_op > > iterator > > > and use ATOMIC_LDOP instead; use register_operand for the > > input; > > > drop the split and emit insns directly. > > > (aarch64_atomic_fetch_<ATOMIC_LDOP><ALLI>_lse): Likewise. > > > (aarch64_atomic_<atomic_op>_fetch<ALLI>_lse): Remove. > > > (@aarch64_atomic_load<ATOMIC_LDOP><ALLI>): Remove. > > > > > > From-SVN: r265660 > > > > > > From 53de1ea800db54b47290d578c43892799b66c8dc Mon Sep 17 > > 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> > > > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 23:11:22 +0000 > > > Subject: [PATCH] aarch64: Remove early clobber from > > ATOMIC_LDOP scratch > > > > > > * config/aarch64/atomics.md > > (aarch64_atomic_<ATOMIC_LDOP><ALLI>_lse): > > > The scratch register need not be early-clobber. Document the > > reason > > > why we cannot use ST<OP>. > > > > > > From-SVN: r265703 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/27/20, 12:06 PM, "Kyrill Tkachov" > > <kyrylo.tkac...@foss.arm.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Sebastian, > > > > > > On 2/27/20 4:53 PM, Pop, Sebastian wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > is somebody already working on backporting -moutline-atomics > to > > gcc > > > > 8.x and 9.x branches? > > > > > > > I'm not aware of such work going on. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Kyrill > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Sebastian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >