Hi Jeff,
That check is performed in a lambda function:
{"zce", "zcf",
[] (const riscv_subset_list *subset_list) -> bool
{
return subset_list->xlen () == 32 && subset_list->lookup ("f");
}},
The typo was in a rule itself:
{"zcf", "f", ...
So, with this fix zcf in implied by zce if this condition is passed:
subset_list->xlen () == 32 && subset_list->lookup ("f")
Before 9e12010b5e724277ea this rule was implemented in this code:
if (subset_list->lookup ("zce") != NULL
&& subset_list->m_xlen == 32
&& subset_list->lookup ("f") != NULL
&& subset_list->lookup ("zcf") == NULL)
subset_list->add ("zcf", false);
But it was accidentally refactored in a wrong way.
Regards,
Yuriy Kolerov
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Law <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 4:46 PM
To: Yuriy Kolerov <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: Artemiy Volkov <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] RISC-V: Fix a typo in zce to zcf implication
On 2/24/25 3:22 AM, Yuriy Kolerov wrote:
> zce must imply zcf but this rule was corrupted after refactoring in
> 9e12010b5e724277ea. This may be observed ater generating an .s file
> from any source code file with -mriscv-attribute -march=rv32if_zce
> -mabi=ilp32 -S options. A full march will be presented in arch
> attribute:
>
> rv32i2p1_f2p2_zicsr2p0_zca1p0_zcb1p0_zce1p0_zcmp1p0_zcmt1p0
>
> As you see, zcf is not presented here though f_zce pair is passed in
> -march. According to The RISC-V Instruction Set Manual:
>
> Specifying Zce on RV32 with F includes Zca, Zcb, Zcmp,
> Zcmt and Zcf.
>
> PR target/118906
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc: fix zce to zcf
> implication.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.target/riscv/attribute-zce-1.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/attribute-zce-2.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/attribute-zce-3.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/riscv/attribute-zce-4.c: New test.
I'm not 100% sure this is implementation is correct. My understanding is that
zce implies zcf iff rv32 and f are also enabled. So don't you need to verify
that rv32 and f are enabled? Or is that done elsewhere?
Though it looks like the other cases zce -> {zca, zcb, zcmp, zcmp} don't have
that check.
It feels like I'm missing something in how all this works.
Kito, you know this stuff better than I, thoughts?
Jeff
