RV32E was recently [ratified](afd613691c) so we should update the version as our MC-layer support is complete.
Reviewed By: kito-cheng
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144384
Instead of having a separate single letter and multiletter ranking
use a unified rank that assigns multiletter a larger value than
single letter.
Once we've ranked the extensions, then we compare using these ranks.
Reviewed By: kito-cheng
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D146273
This field is never used in the compiler and was only used in
unit tests added recently.
It's only used as the value in a map where the extension name
is the key. If we need the string we can get it from the key.
Reviewed By: asb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D146197
RISCVISAInfo::parseArchString would sometimes error for arch strings
with a trailing _ and sometimes accept them. This patch makes it
consistently error.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D145949
There is no versioning scheme for the 'g' shorthand for imafd (or in
current ISA specs, imafd_zifencei_zicsr). As such, the only sensible
behaviour to me seems to be to reject a version for it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D145954
Prior to this patch, unrecognised z/s/sx/x prefixed extensions were not
ignored when IgnoreUnknown=true.
The first version of this patch, a7313f83b9ca9, incorrectly used
`!isSupportedExtension(Ext)` rather than `!isSupportedExtension(Name)`.
i.e. checked the full substring rather than the split out name, causing
incorrect behaviour when a version is specified. This was fixed and a
new test case addded.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D145882
Prior to this patch, unrecognised z/s/sx/x prefixed extensions were not
ignored when IgnoreUnknown=true.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D145882
I believe this implies relationship is documented in the current
spec but may have been less clear in an older spec.
We used to report an error so I think it should be ok to change this.
Only someone expecting the error should be impacted.
Reviewed By: asb, luismarques
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D145125
This patch follows on from this RFC thread
<https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-resolving-issues-related-to-extension-versioning-in-risc-v/68472/>
and the ensuing discussion in the RISC-V LLVM sync-up call. The
consensus agreed that the behaviour change in LLD introduced in D138550
that results in object files including arch attributes with unrecognised
extensions or versions of extensions is a regression and should be
treated as such. As it stands, this logic means that LLD will error out
if trying to link a RISC-V object file from LLVM HEAD (rv32i2p0/rv64i2p0)
with one from current GCC (rv32i2p1/rv64i2p1 by default).
There's a bigger discussion about exactly when to warn vs error and so
on, and how to control that, and this patch doesn't attempt to address
all those questions. It simply tries to fix the problem with a minimally
invasive change, intended to be cherry-picked for 16.0.x (ideally
16.0.0, but queued for 16.0.1 if we're too late in the release cycle).
As you can see from the test changes, although the changed logic is
mostly more permissive, it will reject some embedded arch strings that
were accepted before. Because the same logic was previously used for
parsing human-written -march as for the arch attribute (intended to be
stored in normalised form), various short-hand formats were previously
accepted. Maintaining support for such ill-formed attributes would
substantially complicate the logic, and given the previous
implementation was so much stricter in every other way, was surely a bug
rather than a design choice.
Surprisingly, the precise rules for how numbers can be embedded into
extension names isn't fully defined (there is a PR to the ISA manual
that is not yet merged
<https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/pull/718>).
In the absence of specific criteria for rejecting extensions names that
would be ambiguous in abbreviated form,
`RISCVISAInfo::parseArchStringNormalized` just pulls out the version
information from the end of each extension description.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144353
Support for the unratified 1.0-rc3 specification was introduced in
D133443. The specification has since been ratified (in November 2022
according to the recently ratified extensions list
<https://wiki.riscv.org/display/HOME/Recently+Ratified+Extensions>.
A review of the diff
<https://github.com/riscv/riscv-zawrs/compare/V1.0-rc3...main> of the
1.0-rc3 spec vs the current/ratified document shows no changes to the
instruction encoding or naming. At one point, a note was added
<e84f42406a>
indicating Zawrs depends on the Zalrsc extension (not officially
specified, but I believe to be just the LR/SC instructions from the A
extension). The final text ended up as "The instructions in the Zawrs
extension are only useful in conjunction with the LR instructions, which
are provided by the A extension, and which we also expect to be provided
by a narrower Zalrsc extension in the future." I think it's consistent
with this phrasing to not require the A extension for Zawrs, which
matches what was implemented.
No intrinsics are implemented for Zawrs currently, meaning we don't need
to additionally review whether those intrinsics can be considered
finalised and ready for exposure to end users.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D143507
Experimental support for the zfa extension was recently added in https://reviews.llvm.org/D141984. A couple of the normal test changes and clang plumbing got missed in that change. This commit updates the usual suspects.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144288
This change adds the definition of the two extensions, but does not either a) make any instruction conditional on them or b) enabled the extensions by default. (The *instructions* do remain enabled by default per ISA version 2.0 which is our current default.)
This is meant to be a building block towards something like https://reviews.llvm.org/D141666, and in the meantime, address one of the most surprising of the current user experience warts. The current behavior of rejecting the extensions at the command line despite emitting code which appears to use them is surprising to anyone not deeply versed in the details of this situation.
Between versions 2.0 and 2.1 of the base I specification, a backwards incompatible change was made to remove selected instructions and CSRs from the base ISA. These instructions were grouped into a set of new extensions (these), but were no longer required by the base ISA. This change is described in “Preface to Document Version 20190608-Base-Ratified” from the specification document.
As LLVM currently implements only version 2.0 of the base specification, accepting these extensions at the command line introduces a configuration which doesn't actually match any spec version. It's a pretty harmless variant since the 2.0 extension definitions, to my knowledge, exactly match the text from the 2.0 I text before they were moved into standalone extensions in 2.1 of I. (The version numbering in that sentence is a tad confusing to say the least. Hopefully I got it right.)
It is worth noting that we already have numerous examples of accepting extensions in the march string which didn't exist in version of the spec document corresponding to our current base I version, so this doesn't set any new precedent.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D143953
This patch add the instructions of Zcb extension.
Instructions in zcb extensions shorten part of bit manipulation instructions.
Co-authored-by: Craig Topper <craig.topper@sifive.com>
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D131141
RISC-V supports `-march`, `-mtune`, and `-mcpu`: `-march` provides the
architecture extension information, `-mtune` provide the pipeline model, and
`-mcpu` provides both.
What's the priority among those options for now(w/o this patch)?
Pipeline model:
- Take from `-mtune` if present.
- Take from `-mcpu` if present
- Use the default pipeline model: `generic-rv32` or `generic-rv64`
Architecture extension has quite complicated behavior now:
- Take union from `-march` and `-mcpu` if both are present.
- Take from `-march` if present.
- Take from `-mcpu` if present.
- Implied from `-mabi` if present.
- Use the default architecture depending on the target triple
We treat `-mcpu`/`-mtune` and `-mcpu`/`-march` differently, and it's
kind of counterintuitive: -march is explicitly specified but ignored.
This patch adjusts the priority between `-mcpu`/`-march`, letting it use
architecture extension information from `-march` if it's present.
So the priority of architecture extension information becomes:
- Take from `-march` if present.
- Take from `-mcpu` if present.
- Implied from `-mabi` if present.
- Use the default architecture depending on the target triple
And this also match what we implement in RISC-V GCC too.
Reviewed By: craig.topper, MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D140693
`h` was the prefix of multi-letter extension name, but it become a
extension name in later RISC-V isa spec.
Fortunately we don't have any extension really defined is prefixed
with `h`, so we can just change that.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D136817
Use deduction guides instead of helper functions.
The only non-automatic changes have been:
1. ArrayRef(some_uint8_pointer, 0) needs to be changed into ArrayRef(some_uint8_pointer, (size_t)0) to avoid an ambiguous call with ArrayRef((uint8_t*), (uint8_t*))
2. CVSymbol sym(makeArrayRef(symStorage)); needed to be rewritten as CVSymbol sym{ArrayRef(symStorage)}; otherwise the compiler is confused and thinks we have a (bad) function prototype. There was a few similar situation across the codebase.
3. ADL doesn't seem to work the same for deduction-guides and functions, so at some point the llvm namespace must be explicitly stated.
4. The "reference mode" of makeArrayRef(ArrayRef<T> &) that acts as no-op is not supported (a constructor cannot achieve that).
Per reviewers' comment, some useless makeArrayRef have been removed in the process.
This is a follow-up to https://reviews.llvm.org/D140896 that introduced
the deduction guides.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D140955
So that there is no cyclic dependency if we want to use it in
tablegen.
Reviewed By: fpetrogalli
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D140529
This is a fairly large changeset, but it can be broken into a few
pieces:
- `llvm/Support/*TargetParser*` are all moved from the LLVM Support
component into a new LLVM Component called "TargetParser". This
potentially enables using tablegen to maintain this information, as
is shown in https://reviews.llvm.org/D137517. This cannot currently
be done, as llvm-tblgen relies on LLVM's Support component.
- This also moves two files from Support which use and depend on
information in the TargetParser:
- `llvm/Support/Host.{h,cpp}` which contains functions for inspecting
the current Host machine for info about it, primarily to support
getting the host triple, but also for `-mcpu=native` support in e.g.
Clang. This is fairly tightly intertwined with the information in
`X86TargetParser.h`, so keeping them in the same component makes
sense.
- `llvm/ADT/Triple.h` and `llvm/Support/Triple.cpp`, which contains
the target triple parser and representation. This is very intertwined
with the Arm target parser, because the arm architecture version
appears in canonical triples on arm platforms.
- I moved the relevant unittests to their own directory.
And so, we end up with a single component that has all the information
about the following, which to me seems like a unified component:
- Triples that LLVM Knows about
- Architecture names and CPUs that LLVM knows about
- CPU detection logic for LLVM
Given this, I have also moved `RISCVISAInfo.h` into this component, as
it seems to me to be part of that same set of functionality.
If you get link errors in your components after this patch, you likely
need to add TargetParser into LLVM_LINK_COMPONENTS in CMake.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D137838
This patch mechanically replaces None with std::nullopt where the
compiler would warn if None were deprecated. The intent is to reduce
the amount of manual work required in migrating from Optional to
std::optional.
This is part of an effort to migrate from llvm::Optional to
std::optional:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/deprecating-llvm-optional-x-hasvalue-getvalue-getvalueor/63716
This patch add the instructions of Zcd extension.
Zcd is a subset of C Ext which include the double-precision floating-point instructions (c.fld, c.fldsp, c.fsd, c.fsdsp).
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D134177
This patch add the instructions of Zcf extension.
Zcf is a subset of C Ext which include the single-precision floating-point instructions.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D134176
