Re: AArch64: Add UNSPECV_PATCHABLE_AREA [PR98776]

Hi Richard, I will commit tomorrow the attached patches to the active branches gcc-10, 11, and 12. The patches passed bootstrap and regression test on arm64-linux. Sebastian From: Richard Sandiford Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 1:38:07 AM To: Pop,

Re: AArch64: Add UNSPECV_PATCHABLE_AREA [PR98776]

Hi Richard, Please find attached a patch that follows your recommendations to generate the BTI_C instructions. Please let me know if the patch can be further improved. The patch passed bootstrap and regressions tests on arm64-linux. Thanks, Sebastian From:

Re: AArch64: Add UNSPECV_PATCHABLE_AREA [PR98776]

Thanks Richard for your review and for pointing out the issue with BTI. The current patch removes the existing BTI instruction, and then adds the BTI hint when expanding the patchable_area pseudo. The attached patch passed bootstrap and regression test on arm64-linux. Ok to commit to gcc

AArch64: Add UNSPECV_PATCHABLE_AREA [PR98776]

Hi, Currently patchable area is at the wrong place on AArch64. It is placed immediately after function label, before .cfi_startproc. This patch adds UNSPECV_PATCHABLE_AREA for pseudo patchable area instruction and modifies aarch64_print_patchable_function_entry to avoid placing patchable area

Re: [AArch64] PR105162: emit barrier for __sync and __atomic builtins on CPUs without LSE

Please see attached the patch back-ported to branches 12, 11, 10, and 9. Tested on aarch64-linux with bootstrap and regression test. Ok to commit to the GCC active branches? Thanks, SebastianFrom bba8d09284f3478f7d542ca4e7812d4c55e25bd4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sebastian Pop Date: Mon, 18

Re: [AArch64] PR105162: emit barrier for __sync and __atomic builtins on CPUs without LSE

> Yes this looks good to me (still needs maintainer approval). Thanks again Wilco for your review. > One minor nitpick, > a few of the tests check for __aarch64_cas2 - this should be > __aarch64_cas2_sync. Fixed in the attached patch. > Note the patch still needs an appropriate commit

Re: [AArch64] PR105162: emit barrier for __sync and __atomic builtins on CPUs without LSE

Hi Wilco, Thanks for your review. Please find attached the patch amended following your recommendations. The number of new functions for _sync is reduced by 3x. I tested the patch on Graviton2 aarch64-linux. I also checked by hand that the outline functions in libgcc look similar to what GCC

Re: [AArch64] PR105162: emit barrier for __sync and __atomic builtins on CPUs without LSE

Hi, Wilco pointed out in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105162#c7? that "Only __sync needs the extra full barrier, but __atomic does not." The attached patch does that by adding out-of-line functions for MEMMODEL_SYNC_*. Those new functions contain a barrier on the path

[AArch64] PR105162: emit barrier for __sync and __atomic builtins on CPUs without LSE

Hi, With -moutline-atomics gcc stops generating a barrier for __sync builtins: https://gcc.gnu.org/PR105162 This is a problem on CPUs without LSE instructions where the ld/st exclusives do not guarantee a full barrier. The attached patch

Re: [AArch64] Add --with-tune configure flag

On 11/19/20, 10:52 AM, "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" wrote: > Having the same option have a completely different meaning would be even > worse than not having the option at all. So no, that's a non-starter. The attached patch 0001 removes --with-{cpu,arch,tune}-32. Bootstrap and regression

Re: [AArch64] Add --with-tune configure flag

Hi, On 11/18/20, 10:17 AM, "Wilco Dijkstra" wrote: >I presume you're trying to unify the --with- options across most targets? Yes, my intention was to provide the same configure options on arm64 as on x86, such that projects that already use those options can change cpu name to

Re: [AArch64] Add --with-tune configure flag

Hi, here is a follow-up patch to add missing Arm64 configure flags as aliases to the existing flags. gcc/ * config.gcc: add configure flags --with-{cpu,arch,tune}-{32,64} as alias flags for --with-{cpu,arch,tune} on AArch64. * doc/install.texi: Document new flags for

[AArch64] Add --with-tune configure flag

Hi, the attached patch fixes a configure error on Arm64 when passing --with-tune=... to configure: ``` This target does not support --with-tune. Valid --with options are: abi cpu arch ``` The missing flag sets target tuning to a different value than the generic tuning. gcc/ *

Re: [gcc-7-arm] Backport -moutline-atomics flag

Hi Richard, On 11/11/20, 8:45 AM, "Richard Biener" wrote: > Any update here? Are those patches in production at Amazon? > I now see refs/vendors/AWS/heads/Arm64/gcc-7-branch The patches in the branch https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/vendors/AWS/heads/Arm64/gcc-7-branch up

Re: [gcc-7-arm] Backport -moutline-atomics flag

Thanks Richard for your recommendations. I am still discussing with Kyrill about a good name for the branch. Once we agree on a name we will commit the patches to that branch. Sebastian On 9/24/20, 4:10 AM, "Richard Biener" wrote: On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 12:38 AM Pop, Sebasti

Re: [aarch64] Backport missing NEON intrinsics to GCC8

Thanks Christophe for reporting the errors. On 9/16/20, 7:45 AM, "Kyrylo Tkachov" wrote: > > The new tests vld1x3 and vld1x4 fail on arm, I am seeing new failures > > on gcc-8 and gcc-9 branches > > after r8-10451, r8-10452 and r9-8874. > > Is that expected/fixed later in the backport series? >

Re: [aarch64] Backport missing NEON intrinsics to GCC8

Thanks Kyrill for your review. I committed the patches to the gcc-8 branch: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=2c55e6caa9432b2c1f081cb3aeddd36abec03233 https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=a4004f62d60ada3a20dbf30146ca461047a575cc and to the gcc-9 branch:

[aarch64] Backport missing NEON intrinsics to GCC9

Hi, gcc-9 branch is missing NEON intrinsics for loads and stores. Attached patches pass bootstrap and regression testing on Graviton2 aarch64-linux. Ok to commit to gcc-9 branch? Thanks, Sebastian 0001-add-intrinsics-for-vld1-q-_x4-and-vst1-q-_x4.patch Description:

[aarch64] Backport missing NEON intrinsics to GCC8

Hi, gcc-8 branch is missing NEON intrinsics for loads and stores. Attached patches pass bootstrap and regression testing on Graviton2 aarch64-linux. Ok to commit to gcc-8 branch? Thanks, Sebastian 0001-Patch-implementing-vld1_-_x3-vst1_-_x2-and-vst1_-_x3.patch Description:

[gcc-7-arm] Backport Neoverse-N1 tuning

Hi, The attached patches bring the description of Ares and Neoverse-N1 to the gcc-7-arm vendor branch. There were 2 changes to adjust the first patch to the older code in gcc-7. Instead of: + "32:16", /* function_align. */ + "32:16", /* jump_align. */ + "32:16", /* loop_align.

Re: [PATCH 0/19][GCC-8] aarch64: Backport outline atomics

Hi Andre, the patch series passed bootstrap and check with no new fails on Graviton2 aarch64-linux. Thanks, Sebastian On 4/16/20, 12:24 PM, "Pop, Sebastian" wrote: Thanks Andre for the back-port to gcc-8. Overall the patches look good to me. Could you please move the patch

Re: [PATCH 0/19][GCC-8] aarch64: Backport outline atomics

Thanks Andre for the back-port to gcc-8. Overall the patches look good to me. Could you please move the patch "[PATCH 13/19][GCC-8] Aarch64: Fix shrinkwrapping interactions with atomics (PR92692)" just after "[PATCH 8/19][GCC-8] aarch64: Implement TImode compare-and-swap" such that the change

Re: [AArch64] Backporting -moutline-atomics to gcc 9.x and 8.x

quot;Christophe Lyon" 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. On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 01:24, Pop, Sebastian via Gcc-patches wrote:

Re: [AArch64] Backporting -moutline-atomics to gcc 9.x and 8.x

lick links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 02:32:03PM +0000, Pop, Sebastian via Gcc-patches wrote: > Thanks Kyrill! I will be happy to test the gcc-8 back-port of the patches. Note, I hav

Re: [AArch64] Backporting -moutline-atomics to gcc 9.x and 8.x

Original Message----- > > From: Gcc-patches On Behalf Of Pop, > > Sebastian via Gcc-patches > > Sent: 31 March 2020 16:47 > > To: Kyrill Tkachov ; > > gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > > Cc: Wilco Dijkstra ; > > richard.hender.

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, Sebastian On 3/24/20, 7:24 PM, "Pop, Sebastian" wrote: Hi Kyrill, Thanks for pointing out the two missing bug fixes. Please see attached all the back-ported patches. All the patches

Re: [AArch64] Backporting -moutline-atomics to gcc 9.x and 8.x

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

Re: [AArch64] Backporting -moutline-atomics to gcc 9.x and 8.x

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