On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 15:00:49 PDT (-0700), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
On 10/30/22 19:40, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:From: Ju-Zhe Zhong <juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/abi-2.c: Change ilp32d to ilp32. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/abi-3.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/abi-4.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/abi-5.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/abi-6.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/abi-7.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-1.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-10.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-11.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-12.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-13.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-2.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-3.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-4.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-5.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-6.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-7.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-8.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/mov-9.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/pragma-1.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/user-1.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/user-2.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/user-3.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/user-4.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/user-5.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/user-6.c: Ditto. * gcc.target/riscv/rvv/base/vsetvl-1.c: Ditto.I'm pretty new to the RISC-V world, but don't some of the cases (particularly the abi-* tests) verify that the ABI specification does not override the arch specification WRT availability of types?
I think that depends on what the ABI specification says here, as it could really go many ways. Most of the RISC-V targets just use -mabi to control how arguments end up passed in functions, not the availability of types. I can't find the ABI spec for these, though, so I'm not entirely sure how they're supposed to work...
That said, I'm not sure why we need any of these -mabi changes? Just from spot checking some of the examples it doesn't look like there should be any functional difference between ilp32 and ilp32d here: -march is always specified so ilp32d looks valid. If this is just to fix the "fails on targets without ilp32d" [1], then IMO it's not really a fix: we're essentially just changing that to "fails on targets without ilp32", we either need some sort of automatic march/mabi setting or a dependency on the availiable multilibs. Some of these can probably avoid linking, but we'll have execution tests at some point.
1: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/604644.html
