[PATCH] RISC-V: testsuite: Fix 32-bit FAILs.

[钟居哲]

Hi, Kito. Could you take a look at this issue?

-march parser is consistent between non-linux and linux.

You can simplify verify it with these cases:

FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-run.c -std=c99 -O3 -ftree-vectorize --param riscv-autovec-preference=fixed-vlmax (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-runu.c -std=c99 -O3 -ftree-vectorize --param riscv-autovec-preference=fixed-vlmax (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_extract-zvfh-run.c -std=c99 -O3 -ftree-vectorize --param riscv-autovec-preference=fixed-vlmax (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_set-run.c -std=c99 -O3 -ftree-vectorize --param riscv-autovec-preference=fixed-vlmax (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vls-vlmax/vec_set-zvfh-run.c -std=c99 -O3 -ftree-vectorize --param riscv-autovec-preference=fixed-vlmax (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/rvv/autovec/vmv-imm-run.c -O3 -ftree-vectorize (test for excess errors)

These cases failed on non-linux toolchain, but pass on linux toolchain.
This consistency is caused by your previous multilib patch as Lehua said:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/17d683d 




juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai
 
From: Lehua Ding
Date: 2023-11-13 19:27
To: kito.cheng; Robin Dapp
CC: juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai; gcc-patches; palmer; jeffreyalaw
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: testsuite: Fix 32-bit FAILs.
Hi Kito,
 
On 2023/11/13 19:13, Lehua Ding wrote:
> Hi Robin,
> 
> On 2023/11/13 18:33, Robin Dapp wrote:
>>> On 2023/11/13 18:22, juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai wrote:
>>>> If there is a difference between them. I think we should fix 
>>>> riscv-common.cc.
>>>> Since I think "zvfh_zfh" should not be different with "zfh_zvfh"
>>>
>>> It's possible. Let me debug it and see if there's a problem.
>>
>> I don't think it is different.  Just checked and it still works for me.
>>
>> Could you please tell me how you invoke the testsuite?
> 
> This looks to be the difference between the linux and elf versions of 
> gcc. The elf version of gcc we are build will have this problem, the 
> linux version of gcc will not. I think the linux version of gcc has a 
> wrong behavior.:
> 
> ➜  riscv-gnu-toolchain-push git:(tintin-dev) 
> ./build/dev-rv32gcv_zfh_zvfh-ilp32d-medany-newlib-spike-debug/install/bin/riscv32-unknown-elf-gcc -march=rv32gcv_zfh build/dev-rv64gcv_zvfh_zfh-lp64d-medany-newlib-spike-debug/hello.c
> riscv32-unknown-elf-gcc: fatal error: Cannot find suitable multilib set 
> for 
> '-march=rv32imafdcv_zicsr_zifencei_zfh_zfhmin_zve32f_zve32x_zve64d_zve64f_zve64x_zvl128b_zvl32b_zvl64b'/'-mabi=ilp32d'
> compilation terminated.
> ➜  riscv-gnu-toolchain-push git:(tintin-dev) 
> ./build/dev-rv32gcv_zfh_zvfh-ilp32d-medany-linux-spike-debug/install/bin/riscv32-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc -march=rv32gcv_zfh build/dev-rv64gcv_zvfh_zfh-lp64d-medany-newlib-spike-debug/hello.c
> 
 
It looks like this commit[1] from you make the difference between elf 
and linux. Can you help to see if it makes sense to behave differently 
now? elf version --with-arch is rv32gcv_zvfh_zfh, and the user will get 
an error with -march=rv32gcv_zfh. linux version will not.
 
[1] https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/17d683d
 
-- 
Best,
Lehua (RiVAI)
lehua.ding@rivai.ai
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20231115/135bb300/attachment.htm>