On Mon, 9 Sep 2024, Jiaxun Yang wrote:
> >> diff --git a/scripts/generate_rust_target.rs b/scripts/generate_rust_target.rs
> >> index 863720777313..bbdf8a4dd169 100644
> >> --- a/scripts/generate_rust_target.rs
> >> +++ b/scripts/generate_rust_target.rs
> > [...]
> >> + } else {
> >> + ts.push("arch", "mips");
> >> + cfg.get("TARGET_ISA_REV").map(|isa_rev| {
> >> + let feature = match isa_rev.as_str() {
> >> + "1" => ",+mips32",
> >> + "2" => ",+mips32r2",
> >> + "5" => ",+mips32r5",
> >> + "6" => ",+mips32r6",
> >> + _ => ",+mips2",
> >
> > What's the consequence of using `mips2' rather than `mips1' here? How
> > about other ISA revisions, e.g. `mips4' (that also applies to the 64BIT
> > leg)?
>
> LLVM's mips1 backend is a little bit broken beyond repair, so I tried to use mips2
> as a baseline. I should probably let HAVE_RUST depend on !CPU_R3000 to get it covered.
GCC works just fine I suppose, just as with the other language frontends,
doesn't it?
> We have no good way to tell ISA reversion prior to R1 just from Kconfig TARGET_ISA_REV,
> valid numbers for TARGET_ISA_REV are only 1, 2, 5, 6 from Kconfig.
This approach doesn't work for some MIPS architecture processor configs
anyway, e.g. what ISA revision will CPU_P5600 imply here?
However if there's a need (and previously there wasn't), then I think it
can be sorted in a straightforward way. We have just a bunch of CPU_*
settings and we can define corresponding ISA_* settings to select, e.g.
ISA_MIPS1, ISA_MIPS3, ISA_MIPS32_R1, ISA_MIPS64_R6, and so on, based on
information extracted from per-CPU_* `-march=' compilation flags from
arch/mips/Makefile (possibly combined with ISA data obtained from
GCC/binutils for said flags).
It could be a bit tedious to write, but not a big challenge really, just
mechanical work.
> Given that mips 2 and 3 binaries (Rust object files) can link run flawlessly on all pre-R6
> (despite R3000) hardware with matching bitness, they were chosen as fallback here.
I'm fine with having a MIPS1/R3000 exception for broken LLVM, but I see
no reason to disable it for GCC.
Maciej
