LGTM
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:16 PM Christoph Müllner
<christoph.muell...@vrull.eu> wrote:
>
> The XTheadMemIdx support relies on the fact that memory operands that
> can be expressed by XTheadMemIdx instructions, will only appear as
> operands of such instructions. For internal instruction generation
> this is guaranteed by the implemenation. However, in case of inline
> assembly, this guarantee is not given and we cannot differentiate
> these two cases when printing the operand:
>
> asm volatile ("sd %1,%0" : "=m"(*tmp) : "r"(val));
> asm volatile ("th.srd %1,%0" : "=m"(*tmp) : "r"(val));
>
> If XTheadMemIdx is enabled, then the address will be printed as if an
> XTheadMemIdx instruction is emitted, which is obviously wrong in the
> first case.
>
> There might be solutions to handle this (e.g. using TARGET_MEM_CONSTRAINT
> or extending the mnemonics to accept the standard operands for
> XTheadMemIdx instructions), but let's document this behavior for now
> as a known issue by adding xfail tests until we have an acceptable fix.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.target/riscv/xtheadmemidx-inline-asm-1.c: New test.
>
> Reported-by: Jin Ma <ji...@linux.alibaba.com>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muell...@vrull.eu>
> ---
> .../riscv/xtheadmemidx-inline-asm-1.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/xtheadmemidx-inline-asm-1.c
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/xtheadmemidx-inline-asm-1.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/xtheadmemidx-inline-asm-1.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..da52433feb7
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/xtheadmemidx-inline-asm-1.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } { "-O0" "-O1" "-Og" } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-march=rv64gc_xtheadmemidx" } */
> +
> +/* XTheadMemIdx support is implemented such that reg+reg addressing mode
> + loads/stores are preferred over standard loads/stores.
> + If this order changed using inline assembly, the result will be invalid
> + instructions. This test serves the purpose of documenting this
> + limitation until a solution is available. */
> +
> +void foo (void *p, unsigned long off, unsigned long val)
> +{
> + unsigned long *tmp = (unsigned long*)(p + off);
> + asm volatile ("sd %1,%0" : "=m"(*tmp) : "r"(val));
> +}
> +
> +void bar (void *p, unsigned long off, unsigned long val)
> +{
> + unsigned long *tmp = (unsigned long*)(p + off);
> + asm volatile ("th.srd %1,%0" : "=m"(*tmp) : "r"(val));
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "sd\t\[a-z\]\[0-9\]+,0\\(\[a-z\]\[0-9\]+\\)"
> { xfail *-*-* } } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not
> "sd\t\[a-z\]\[0-9\]+,\[a-z\]\[0-9\]+,\[a-z\]\[0-9\]+,0" { xfail *-*-* } } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler
> "th\.srd\t\[a-z\]\[0-9\]+,\[a-z\]\[0-9\]+,\[a-z\]\[0-9\]+,0" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not
> "th\.srd\t\[a-z\]\[0-9\]+,0\\(\[a-z\]\[0-9\]+\\)" } } */
> --
> 2.43.0
>
