Re: [GCC][Patch] arm: Fix the mve multilib for the broken cmse support (pr99939).

2021-06-11 Thread Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches 




On 11/06/2021 14:02, Srinath Parvathaneni via Gcc-patches wrote:

Hi Richard,

I have addressed all your review comments in 
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/571739.html
in the following patch.

The current CMSE support in the multilib build for "-march=armv8.1-m.main+mve 
-mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=auto"
is broken as specified in PR99939 and this patch fixes the issue.

Regression tested on arm-none-eabi and found no regressions.

Ok for master? and Ok for GCC-10 branch?

Regards,
Srinath.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2021-06-11  Srinath Parvathaneni  

PR target/99939
* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c: Add separate scan-assembler
directives check for target is v8.1-m.main+mve or not before
comparing the assembly output.
* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c: New test.

libgcc/ChangeLog:

2021-06-11  Srinath Parvathaneni  

PR target/99939
* config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S: Add __ARM_FEATURE_MVE
macro.
* config/arm/t-arm: To link cmse.o and cmse_nonsecure_call.o
on passing -mcmse option.




OK.

R.


### Attachment also inlined for ease of reply###


diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c
index 
e1ff09257b7900982f49117d4cfc16f3bd79d76c..db7d975a90ea4bd1810aea03949ec1e8837e
 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c
@@ -8,4 +8,5 @@ void bar(f func, int a)
func(a);
  }
  
-/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "call unspec\\\[\\\[r4:SI\\\]\\\]" "final" } } */

+/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "call unspec\\\[\\\[r4:SI\\\]\\\]" "final" { 
target { ! arm_v8_1m_mve_ok } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "call unspec\\\[\\\[r\[0-7\]:SI\\\]\\\]" "final" 
{ target { arm_v8_1m_mve_ok } } } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
new file mode 100644
index 
..08e89bff6378f1f96950fc40f3ab3946bd433773
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+/* This test is executed only if the execution engine supports CMSE 
instructions.  */
+/* { dg-options "--save-temps -mcmse 
-Wl,--section-start,.gnu.sgstubs=0x0040" } */
+
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+
+void __attribute__((cmse_nonsecure_entry))
+secure_fun (int a, int *p)
+{
+  void *b = cmse_check_address_range ((void *)p, a, 1);
+
+  if (b == NULL)
+   __builtin_abort ();
+  printf("%d", *((int *)b));
+}
+
+int
+main (void)
+{
+  int *ptr;
+  int size = 1;
+  ptr = (int *) calloc (1, sizeof(int *));
+  *ptr = 1315852292;
+  secure_fun (size, ptr);
+  free (ptr);
+  return 0;
+}
diff --git a/libgcc/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S 
b/libgcc/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
index 
146f3ed52e9c7e915e5dbd9b70624ec3bd7cd5b5..00830ade98ea650c328c709d5d308fbc96f7f21c
 100644
--- a/libgcc/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
+++ b/libgcc/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
  
  .syntax unified

  #ifdef __ARM_PCS_VFP
-# if __ARM_FP & 0x8
+# if (__ARM_FP & 0x8) || (__ARM_FEATURE_MVE & 1)
.fpu fpv5-d16
  # else
.fpu fpv4-sp-d16
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ vmov  s24, s25, r5, r5
  vmov  s26, s27, r5, r5
  vmov  s28, s29, r5, r5
  vmov  s30, s31, r5, r5
-#elif __ARM_FP & 0x08
+#elif (__ARM_FP & 0x8) || (__ARM_FEATURE_MVE & 1)
  vmov.f64d9, d8
  vmov.f64d10, d8
  vmov.f64d11, d8
diff --git a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
index 
3625a2590beec4e4e0e0881be9ad284c595c7190..c1553d4e5d80751b13dc2e9c9e36d5ebe82e5f8c
 100644
--- a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
+++ b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
@@ -3,18 +3,17 @@ LIB1ASMFUNCS = _thumb1_case_sqi _thumb1_case_uqi 
_thumb1_case_shi \
_thumb1_case_uhi _thumb1_case_si _speculation_barrier
  
  HAVE_CMSE:=$(findstring __ARM_FEATURE_CMSE,$(shell $(gcc_compile_bare) -dM -E - 
-HAVE_V81M:=$(findstring armv8.1-m.main,$(gcc_compile_bare))
  ifeq ($(shell $(gcc_compile_bare) -E -mcmse - /dev/null 
2>/dev/null; echo $$?),0)
  CMSE_OPTS:=-mcmse
  endif
  
  ifdef HAVE_CMSE

-ifndef HAVE_V81M
+
  libgcc-objects += cmse.o cmse_nonsecure_call.o
  
  cmse.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse.c

$(gcc_compile) -c $(CMSE_OPTS) $<
+
  cmse_nonsecure_call.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
   $(gcc_compile) -c $<
  endif
-endif

[GCC][Patch] arm: Fix the mve multilib for the broken cmse support (pr99939).

2021-06-11 Thread Srinath Parvathaneni via Gcc-patches 
Hi Richard,

I have addressed all your review comments in 
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/571739.html
in the following patch.

The current CMSE support in the multilib build for "-march=armv8.1-m.main+mve 
-mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=auto"
is broken as specified in PR99939 and this patch fixes the issue.

Regression tested on arm-none-eabi and found no regressions.

Ok for master? and Ok for GCC-10 branch?

Regards,
Srinath.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2021-06-11  Srinath Parvathaneni  

PR target/99939
* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c: Add separate scan-assembler
directives check for target is v8.1-m.main+mve or not before
comparing the assembly output.
* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c: New test.

libgcc/ChangeLog:

2021-06-11  Srinath Parvathaneni  

PR target/99939
* config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S: Add __ARM_FEATURE_MVE
macro.
* config/arm/t-arm: To link cmse.o and cmse_nonsecure_call.o
on passing -mcmse option.



### Attachment also inlined for ease of reply###


diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c
index 
e1ff09257b7900982f49117d4cfc16f3bd79d76c..db7d975a90ea4bd1810aea03949ec1e8837e
 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c
@@ -8,4 +8,5 @@ void bar(f func, int a)
   func(a);
 }
 
-/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "call unspec\\\[\\\[r4:SI\\\]\\\]" "final" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "call unspec\\\[\\\[r4:SI\\\]\\\]" "final" { 
target { ! arm_v8_1m_mve_ok } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "call unspec\\\[\\\[r\[0-7\]:SI\\\]\\\]" "final" 
{ target { arm_v8_1m_mve_ok } } } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
new file mode 100644
index 
..08e89bff6378f1f96950fc40f3ab3946bd433773
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+/* This test is executed only if the execution engine supports CMSE 
instructions.  */
+/* { dg-options "--save-temps -mcmse 
-Wl,--section-start,.gnu.sgstubs=0x0040" } */
+
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+
+void __attribute__((cmse_nonsecure_entry))
+secure_fun (int a, int *p)
+{
+  void *b = cmse_check_address_range ((void *)p, a, 1);
+
+  if (b == NULL)
+   __builtin_abort ();
+  printf("%d", *((int *)b));
+}
+
+int
+main (void)
+{
+  int *ptr;
+  int size = 1;
+  ptr = (int *) calloc (1, sizeof(int *));
+  *ptr = 1315852292;
+  secure_fun (size, ptr);
+  free (ptr);
+  return 0;
+}
diff --git a/libgcc/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S 
b/libgcc/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
index 
146f3ed52e9c7e915e5dbd9b70624ec3bd7cd5b5..00830ade98ea650c328c709d5d308fbc96f7f21c
 100644
--- a/libgcc/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
+++ b/libgcc/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
 
 .syntax unified
 #ifdef __ARM_PCS_VFP
-# if __ARM_FP & 0x8
+# if (__ARM_FP & 0x8) || (__ARM_FEATURE_MVE & 1)
.fpu fpv5-d16
 # else
.fpu fpv4-sp-d16
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ vmov  s24, s25, r5, r5
 vmov   s26, s27, r5, r5
 vmov   s28, s29, r5, r5
 vmov   s30, s31, r5, r5
-#elif __ARM_FP & 0x08
+#elif (__ARM_FP & 0x8) || (__ARM_FEATURE_MVE & 1)
 vmov.f64d9, d8
 vmov.f64d10, d8
 vmov.f64d11, d8
diff --git a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
index 
3625a2590beec4e4e0e0881be9ad284c595c7190..c1553d4e5d80751b13dc2e9c9e36d5ebe82e5f8c
 100644
--- a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
+++ b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
@@ -3,18 +3,17 @@ LIB1ASMFUNCS = _thumb1_case_sqi _thumb1_case_uqi 
_thumb1_case_shi \
_thumb1_case_uhi _thumb1_case_si _speculation_barrier
 
 HAVE_CMSE:=$(findstring __ARM_FEATURE_CMSE,$(shell $(gcc_compile_bare) -dM -E 
- /dev/null 
2>/dev/null; echo $$?),0)
 CMSE_OPTS:=-mcmse
 endif
 
 ifdef HAVE_CMSE
-ifndef HAVE_V81M
+
 libgcc-objects += cmse.o cmse_nonsecure_call.o
 
 cmse.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse.c
$(gcc_compile) -c $(CMSE_OPTS) $<
+
 cmse_nonsecure_call.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
   $(gcc_compile) -c $<
 endif
-endif

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c
index 
e1ff09257b7900982f49117d4cfc16f3bd79d76c..db7d975a90ea4bd1810aea03949ec1e8837e
 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c
@@ -8,4 +8,5 @@ void bar(f func, int a)
   func(a);
 }
 
-/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "call unspec\\\[\\\[r4:SI\\\]\\\]" "final" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "call unspec\\\[\\\[r4:SI\\\]\\\]" "final" { 
target { ! arm_v8_1m_mve_ok } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "call unspec\\\[\\\[r\[0-7\]:SI\\\]\\\]" "final" 
{ target { arm_v8_1m_mve_ok } } } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c

[GCC][Patch] arm: Fix the mve multilib for the broken cmse support (pr99939).

2021-06-11 Thread Srinath Parvathaneni via Gcc-patches 
Hi Richard,

I have addressed all your review comments in 
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/571739.html
in the following patch.

The current CMSE support in the multilib build for "-march=armv8.1-m.main+mve 
-mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=auto"
is broken as specified in PR99939 and this patch fixes the issue.

Regression tested on arm-none-eabi and found no regressions.

Ok for master? and Ok for GCC-10 branch?

Regards,
Srinath.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2021-06-11  Srinath Parvathaneni  

* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c: Add separate scan-assembler
directives check for target is v8.1-m.main+mve or not before
comparing the assembly output.
* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c: New test.

libgcc/ChangeLog:

2021-06-11  Srinath Parvathaneni  

* config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S: Add __ARM_FEATURE_MVE
macro.
* config/arm/t-arm: To link cmse.o and cmse_nonsecure_call.o
on passing -mcmse option.



### Attachment also inlined for ease of reply###


diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c
index 
e1ff09257b7900982f49117d4cfc16f3bd79d76c..db7d975a90ea4bd1810aea03949ec1e8837e
 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c
@@ -8,4 +8,5 @@ void bar(f func, int a)
   func(a);
 }
 
-/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "call unspec\\\[\\\[r4:SI\\\]\\\]" "final" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "call unspec\\\[\\\[r4:SI\\\]\\\]" "final" { 
target { ! arm_v8_1m_mve_ok } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "call unspec\\\[\\\[r\[0-7\]:SI\\\]\\\]" "final" 
{ target { arm_v8_1m_mve_ok } } } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
new file mode 100644
index 
..08e89bff6378f1f96950fc40f3ab3946bd433773
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+/* This test is executed only if the execution engine supports CMSE 
instructions.  */
+/* { dg-options "--save-temps -mcmse 
-Wl,--section-start,.gnu.sgstubs=0x0040" } */
+
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+
+void __attribute__((cmse_nonsecure_entry))
+secure_fun (int a, int *p)
+{
+  void *b = cmse_check_address_range ((void *)p, a, 1);
+
+  if (b == NULL)
+   __builtin_abort ();
+  printf("%d", *((int *)b));
+}
+
+int
+main (void)
+{
+  int *ptr;
+  int size = 1;
+  ptr = (int *) calloc (1, sizeof(int *));
+  *ptr = 1315852292;
+  secure_fun (size, ptr);
+  free (ptr);
+  return 0;
+}
diff --git a/libgcc/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S 
b/libgcc/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
index 
146f3ed52e9c7e915e5dbd9b70624ec3bd7cd5b5..00830ade98ea650c328c709d5d308fbc96f7f21c
 100644
--- a/libgcc/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
+++ b/libgcc/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
 
 .syntax unified
 #ifdef __ARM_PCS_VFP
-# if __ARM_FP & 0x8
+# if (__ARM_FP & 0x8) || (__ARM_FEATURE_MVE & 1)
.fpu fpv5-d16
 # else
.fpu fpv4-sp-d16
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ vmov  s24, s25, r5, r5
 vmov   s26, s27, r5, r5
 vmov   s28, s29, r5, r5
 vmov   s30, s31, r5, r5
-#elif __ARM_FP & 0x08
+#elif (__ARM_FP & 0x8) || (__ARM_FEATURE_MVE & 1)
 vmov.f64d9, d8
 vmov.f64d10, d8
 vmov.f64d11, d8
diff --git a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
index 
3625a2590beec4e4e0e0881be9ad284c595c7190..c1553d4e5d80751b13dc2e9c9e36d5ebe82e5f8c
 100644
--- a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
+++ b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
@@ -3,18 +3,17 @@ LIB1ASMFUNCS = _thumb1_case_sqi _thumb1_case_uqi 
_thumb1_case_shi \
_thumb1_case_uhi _thumb1_case_si _speculation_barrier
 
 HAVE_CMSE:=$(findstring __ARM_FEATURE_CMSE,$(shell $(gcc_compile_bare) -dM -E 
- /dev/null 
2>/dev/null; echo $$?),0)
 CMSE_OPTS:=-mcmse
 endif
 
 ifdef HAVE_CMSE
-ifndef HAVE_V81M
+
 libgcc-objects += cmse.o cmse_nonsecure_call.o
 
 cmse.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse.c
$(gcc_compile) -c $(CMSE_OPTS) $<
+
 cmse_nonsecure_call.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
   $(gcc_compile) -c $<
 endif
-endif

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c
index 
e1ff09257b7900982f49117d4cfc16f3bd79d76c..db7d975a90ea4bd1810aea03949ec1e8837e
 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c
@@ -8,4 +8,5 @@ void bar(f func, int a)
   func(a);
 }
 
-/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "call unspec\\\[\\\[r4:SI\\\]\\\]" "final" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "call unspec\\\[\\\[r4:SI\\\]\\\]" "final" { 
target { ! arm_v8_1m_mve_ok } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-rtl-dump "call unspec\\\[\\\[r\[0-7\]:SI\\\]\\\]" "final" 
{ target { arm_v8_1m_mve_ok } } } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
new file mode 100644
index

Re: [GCC][Patch] arm: Fix the mve multilib for the broken cmse support (pr99939).

2021-06-02 Thread Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches 




On 01/06/2021 18:16, Srinath Parvathaneni via Gcc-patches wrote:

Hi Richard,


-Original Message-
From: Richard Earnshaw 
Sent: 13 April 2021 14:55
To: Srinath Parvathaneni ; gcc-
patc...@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Richard Earnshaw 
Subject: Re: [GCC][Patch] arm: Fix the mve multilib for the broken cmse
support (pr99939).



On 12/04/2021 14:04, Srinath Parvathaneni via Gcc-patches wrote:

Hi,

The current CMSE support in the multilib build for "-march=armv8.1-

m.main+mve -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=auto"

is broken as specified in PR99939 and this patch fixes the issue.

Regression tested on arm-none-eabi and found no regressions.

Ok for master? and Ok for GCC-10 branch?

Regards,
Srinath.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2021-04-12  Srinath Parvathaneni  

PR target/99939
* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c: New test.

libgcc/ChangeLog:

2021-04-12  Srinath Parvathaneni  

PR target/99939
* config/arm/t-arm: Make changes to use cmse.c for all the
armv8.1-m.main mulitlibs.



### Attachment also inlined for ease of reply

###



diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
new file mode 100644
index


..7e2739e14792624adf5b428
0ca58

a5d8320acbf0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-mcmse
+-Wl,--section-start,.gnu.sgstubs=0x0019" } */
+
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+
+void __attribute__((cmse_nonsecure_entry))
+secure_fun (int a, int *p)
+{
+  void *b = cmse_check_address_range ((void *)p, a, 1);
+
+  if (b == NULL)
+   __builtin_abort ();
+  printf("%d", *((int *)b));
+}
+
+int
+main (void)
+{
+  int *ptr;
+  int size = 1;
+  ptr = (int *) calloc (1, sizeof(int *));
+  *ptr = 1315852292;
+  secure_fun (size, ptr);
+  free (ptr);
+  return 0;
+}
diff --git a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm index


3625a2590beec4e4e0e0881be9ad284c595c7190..949e2ee06653680211ff2dcf
0b55

a41a6aedc31c 100644
--- a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
+++ b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
@@ -9,11 +9,12 @@ CMSE_OPTS:=-mcmse
   endif

   ifdef HAVE_CMSE
-ifndef HAVE_V81M
-libgcc-objects += cmse.o cmse_nonsecure_call.o
+libgcc-objects += cmse.o

   cmse.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse.c
$(gcc_compile) -c $(CMSE_OPTS) $<
+ifndef HAVE_V81M
+libgcc-objects += cmse_nonsecure_call.o
   cmse_nonsecure_call.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
   $(gcc_compile) -c $<
   endif



So if I have two object files using CMSE and one is built with v8m, but the
other with v8.1m, when I link them, the needed additional support for the
v8m object file will be missing the library support.

Wouldn't it be better to just build the cmse_nonsecure_call code
unconditionally?  It won't be called if it's not needed, but will be there if
something does require it.


I have modified the patch to build the cmse_nonsecure_call code unconditionally,
I have attached the diff and cover letter in this email.

Please let me know if it is ok for master?

Regards,
Srinath.


R.




gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2021-06-01  Srinath Parvathaneni  

* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c: Modify

Incomplete.  I know you've modified it, but how?

* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c: New test.

libgcc/ChangeLog:

2021-06-01  Srinath Parvathaneni  

* config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S: Modify to add
__ARM_FEATURE_MVE macro check.

"Add __ARM_FEATURE_MVE macro check." is sufficient (I know you've 
modified it).


* config/arm/t-arm: Make changes to link cmse.o and
cmse_nonsecure_call.o on finding -mcmse gcc options.

Again, "Make changes to " is redundant.

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c

new file mode 100644
index 
..7e2739e14792624adf5b4280ca58a5d8320acbf0

--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-mcmse 
-Wl,--section-start,.gnu.sgstubs=0x0019" } */


Why does this need a different stubs address to all the other executable 
CMSE tests?  Can't it use 0x0040 like them?



R.

RE: [GCC][Patch] arm: Fix the mve multilib for the broken cmse support (pr99939).

2021-06-01 Thread Srinath Parvathaneni via Gcc-patches 
Hi Richard,

> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Earnshaw 
> Sent: 13 April 2021 14:55
> To: Srinath Parvathaneni ; gcc-
> patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Richard Earnshaw 
> Subject: Re: [GCC][Patch] arm: Fix the mve multilib for the broken cmse
> support (pr99939).
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/04/2021 14:04, Srinath Parvathaneni via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The current CMSE support in the multilib build for "-march=armv8.1-
> m.main+mve -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=auto"
> > is broken as specified in PR99939 and this patch fixes the issue.
> >
> > Regression tested on arm-none-eabi and found no regressions.
> >
> > Ok for master? and Ok for GCC-10 branch?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Srinath.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >
> > 2021-04-12  Srinath Parvathaneni  
> >
> > PR target/99939
> > * gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c: New test.
> >
> > libgcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > 2021-04-12  Srinath Parvathaneni  
> >
> > PR target/99939
> > * config/arm/t-arm: Make changes to use cmse.c for all the
> > armv8.1-m.main mulitlibs.
> >
> >
> >
> > ### Attachment also inlined for ease of reply
> ###
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
> > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index
> >
> ..7e2739e14792624adf5b428
> 0ca58
> > a5d8320acbf0
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
> > +/* { dg-do run } */
> > +/* { dg-additional-options "-mcmse
> > +-Wl,--section-start,.gnu.sgstubs=0x0019" } */
> > +
> > +#include 
> > +#include 
> > +#include 
> > +
> > +void __attribute__((cmse_nonsecure_entry))
> > +secure_fun (int a, int *p)
> > +{
> > +  void *b = cmse_check_address_range ((void *)p, a, 1);
> > +
> > +  if (b == NULL)
> > +   __builtin_abort ();
> > +  printf("%d", *((int *)b));
> > +}
> > +
> > +int
> > +main (void)
> > +{
> > +  int *ptr;
> > +  int size = 1;
> > +  ptr = (int *) calloc (1, sizeof(int *));
> > +  *ptr = 1315852292;
> > +  secure_fun (size, ptr);
> > +  free (ptr);
> > +  return 0;
> > +}
> > diff --git a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm index
> >
> 3625a2590beec4e4e0e0881be9ad284c595c7190..949e2ee06653680211ff2dcf
> 0b55
> > a41a6aedc31c 100644
> > --- a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
> > +++ b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
> > @@ -9,11 +9,12 @@ CMSE_OPTS:=-mcmse
> >   endif
> >
> >   ifdef HAVE_CMSE
> > -ifndef HAVE_V81M
> > -libgcc-objects += cmse.o cmse_nonsecure_call.o
> > +libgcc-objects += cmse.o
> >
> >   cmse.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse.c
> > $(gcc_compile) -c $(CMSE_OPTS) $<
> > +ifndef HAVE_V81M
> > +libgcc-objects += cmse_nonsecure_call.o
> >   cmse_nonsecure_call.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
> >$(gcc_compile) -c $<
> >   endif
> >
> 
> So if I have two object files using CMSE and one is built with v8m, but the
> other with v8.1m, when I link them, the needed additional support for the
> v8m object file will be missing the library support.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to just build the cmse_nonsecure_call code
> unconditionally?  It won't be called if it's not needed, but will be there if
> something does require it.

I have modified the patch to build the cmse_nonsecure_call code unconditionally,
I have attached the diff and cover letter in this email.

Please let me know if it is ok for master?

Regards,
Srinath.
> 
> R.

Hi,

The current CMSE support in the multilib build for "-march=armv8.1-m.main+mve 
-mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=auto"
is broken as specified in PR99939 and this patch fixes the issue.

Regression tested on arm-none-eabi and found no regressions.

Ok for master? and Ok for GCC-10 branch?

Regards,
Srinath.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2021-06-01  Srinath Parvathaneni  

* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c: Modify
* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c: New test.

libgcc/ChangeLog:

2021-06-01  Srinath Parvathaneni  

* config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S: Modify to add
__ARM_FEATURE_MVE macro check.
* config/arm/t-arm: Make changes to link cmse.o and
cmse_nonsecure_call.o on finding -mcmse gcc options.

diff (2).patch
Description: diff (2).patch

Re: [GCC][Patch] arm: Fix the mve multilib for the broken cmse support (pr99939).

2021-04-13 Thread Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches 




On 12/04/2021 14:04, Srinath Parvathaneni via Gcc-patches wrote:

Hi,

The current CMSE support in the multilib build for "-march=armv8.1-m.main+mve 
-mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=auto"
is broken as specified in PR99939 and this patch fixes the issue.

Regression tested on arm-none-eabi and found no regressions.

Ok for master? and Ok for GCC-10 branch?

Regards,
Srinath.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2021-04-12  Srinath Parvathaneni  

PR target/99939
* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c: New test.

libgcc/ChangeLog:

2021-04-12  Srinath Parvathaneni  

PR target/99939
* config/arm/t-arm: Make changes to use cmse.c for all the
armv8.1-m.main mulitlibs.



### Attachment also inlined for ease of reply###


diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
new file mode 100644
index 
..7e2739e14792624adf5b4280ca58a5d8320acbf0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-mcmse 
-Wl,--section-start,.gnu.sgstubs=0x0019" } */
+
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+
+void __attribute__((cmse_nonsecure_entry))
+secure_fun (int a, int *p)
+{
+  void *b = cmse_check_address_range ((void *)p, a, 1);
+
+  if (b == NULL)
+   __builtin_abort ();
+  printf("%d", *((int *)b));
+}
+
+int
+main (void)
+{
+  int *ptr;
+  int size = 1;
+  ptr = (int *) calloc (1, sizeof(int *));
+  *ptr = 1315852292;
+  secure_fun (size, ptr);
+  free (ptr);
+  return 0;
+}
diff --git a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
index 
3625a2590beec4e4e0e0881be9ad284c595c7190..949e2ee06653680211ff2dcf0b55a41a6aedc31c
 100644
--- a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
+++ b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
@@ -9,11 +9,12 @@ CMSE_OPTS:=-mcmse
  endif
  
  ifdef HAVE_CMSE

-ifndef HAVE_V81M
-libgcc-objects += cmse.o cmse_nonsecure_call.o
+libgcc-objects += cmse.o
  
  cmse.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse.c

$(gcc_compile) -c $(CMSE_OPTS) $<
+ifndef HAVE_V81M
+libgcc-objects += cmse_nonsecure_call.o
  cmse_nonsecure_call.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
   $(gcc_compile) -c $<
  endif



So if I have two object files using CMSE and one is built with v8m, but 
the other with v8.1m, when I link them, the needed additional support 
for the v8m object file will be missing the library support.


Wouldn't it be better to just build the cmse_nonsecure_call code 
unconditionally?  It won't be called if it's not needed, but will be 
there if something does require it.


R.

[GCC][Patch] arm: Fix the mve multilib for the broken cmse support (pr99939).

2021-04-12 Thread Srinath Parvathaneni via Gcc-patches 
Hi,

The current CMSE support in the multilib build for "-march=armv8.1-m.main+mve 
-mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=auto"
is broken as specified in PR99939 and this patch fixes the issue.

Regression tested on arm-none-eabi and found no regressions.

Ok for master? and Ok for GCC-10 branch?

Regards,
Srinath.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2021-04-12  Srinath Parvathaneni  

PR target/99939
* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c: New test.

libgcc/ChangeLog:

2021-04-12  Srinath Parvathaneni  

PR target/99939
* config/arm/t-arm: Make changes to use cmse.c for all the
armv8.1-m.main mulitlibs.



### Attachment also inlined for ease of reply###


diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
new file mode 100644
index 
..7e2739e14792624adf5b4280ca58a5d8320acbf0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-mcmse 
-Wl,--section-start,.gnu.sgstubs=0x0019" } */
+
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+
+void __attribute__((cmse_nonsecure_entry))
+secure_fun (int a, int *p)
+{
+  void *b = cmse_check_address_range ((void *)p, a, 1);
+
+  if (b == NULL)
+   __builtin_abort ();
+  printf("%d", *((int *)b));
+}
+
+int
+main (void)
+{
+  int *ptr;
+  int size = 1;
+  ptr = (int *) calloc (1, sizeof(int *));
+  *ptr = 1315852292;
+  secure_fun (size, ptr);
+  free (ptr);
+  return 0;
+}
diff --git a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
index 
3625a2590beec4e4e0e0881be9ad284c595c7190..949e2ee06653680211ff2dcf0b55a41a6aedc31c
 100644
--- a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
+++ b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
@@ -9,11 +9,12 @@ CMSE_OPTS:=-mcmse
 endif
 
 ifdef HAVE_CMSE
-ifndef HAVE_V81M
-libgcc-objects += cmse.o cmse_nonsecure_call.o
+libgcc-objects += cmse.o
 
 cmse.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse.c
$(gcc_compile) -c $(CMSE_OPTS) $<
+ifndef HAVE_V81M
+libgcc-objects += cmse_nonsecure_call.o
 cmse_nonsecure_call.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
   $(gcc_compile) -c $<
 endif

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c 
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
new file mode 100644
index 
..7e2739e14792624adf5b4280ca58a5d8320acbf0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-mcmse 
-Wl,--section-start,.gnu.sgstubs=0x0019" } */
+
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+
+void __attribute__((cmse_nonsecure_entry))
+secure_fun (int a, int *p)
+{
+  void *b = cmse_check_address_range ((void *)p, a, 1);
+
+  if (b == NULL)
+   __builtin_abort ();
+  printf("%d", *((int *)b));
+}
+
+int
+main (void)
+{
+  int *ptr;
+  int size = 1;
+  ptr = (int *) calloc (1, sizeof(int *));
+  *ptr = 1315852292;
+  secure_fun (size, ptr);
+  free (ptr);
+  return 0;
+}
diff --git a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
index 
3625a2590beec4e4e0e0881be9ad284c595c7190..949e2ee06653680211ff2dcf0b55a41a6aedc31c
 100644
--- a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
+++ b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
@@ -9,11 +9,12 @@ CMSE_OPTS:=-mcmse
 endif
 
 ifdef HAVE_CMSE
-ifndef HAVE_V81M
-libgcc-objects += cmse.o cmse_nonsecure_call.o
+libgcc-objects += cmse.o
 
 cmse.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse.c
$(gcc_compile) -c $(CMSE_OPTS) $<
+ifndef HAVE_V81M
+libgcc-objects += cmse_nonsecure_call.o
 cmse_nonsecure_call.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
   $(gcc_compile) -c $<
 endif