On 8/24/23 19:32, Mingzheng Xing wrote:
On 8/23/23 21:31, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 12:51:13PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 03:20:24PM +0000,
patchwork-bot+linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hello:
This patch was applied to riscv/linux.git (fixes)
by Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 00:56:48 +0800 you wrote:
Binutils-2.38 and GCC-12.1.0 bumped[0][1] the default ISA spec to
the newer
20191213 version which moves some instructions from the I
extension to the
Zicsr and Zifencei extensions. So if one of the binutils and GCC
exceeds
that version, we should explicitly specifying Zicsr and Zifencei
via -march
to cope with the new changes. but this only occurs when binutils
>= 2.36
and GCC >= 11.1.0. It's a different story when binutils < 2.36.
[...]
Here is the summary with links:
- [v5] riscv: Handle zicsr/zifencei issue between gcc and binutils
https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/ca09f772ccca
*sigh* so this breaks the build for gcc-11 & binutils 2.37 w/
Assembler messages:
Error: cannot find default versions of the ISA extension `zicsr'
Error: cannot find default versions of the ISA extension `zifencei'
I'll have a poke later.
So uh, are we sure that this should not be:
- depends on (CC_IS_CLANG && CLANG_VERSION < 170000) ||
(CC_IS_GCC && GCC_VERSION < 110100)
+ depends on (CC_IS_CLANG && CLANG_VERSION < 170000) ||
(CC_IS_GCC && GCC_VERSION <= 110100)
My gcc-11.1 + binutils 2.37 toolchain built from riscv-gnu-toolchain
doesn't have the default versions & the above diff fixes the build.
I reproduced the error, the combination of gcc-11.1 and
binutils 2.37 does cause errors. What a surprise, since binutils
2.36 and 2.38 are fine.
I used git bisect to locate this commit[1] for binutils.
I'll test this diff in more detail later. Thanks!
[1]
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=f0bae2552db1dd4f1995608fbf6648fcee4e9e0c
Hi, Conor.
The above error does originate from link[1] mentioned above, which was
resolved in gcc-12.1.0[2], and gcc-11.3.0 made the backport[3].
So gcc-11.2.0 combined with binutils 2.37 produces the same error.
I think we should do the following diff to fix it:
- depends on (CC_IS_CLANG && CLANG_VERSION < 170000) || (CC_IS_GCC
&& GCC_VERSION < 110100)
+ depends on (CC_IS_CLANG && CLANG_VERSION < 170000) || (CC_IS_GCC
&& GCC_VERSION < 110300)
Then below are my test results after the fix:
gcc binutils
10.5.0 2.35 ok
10.5.0 2.36 ok
10.5.0 2.37 ok
10.5.0 2.38 ok
11.1.0 2.35 ok
11.1.0 2.36 ok
11.1.0 2.37 ok
11.1.0 2.38 ok
11.2.0 2.35 ok
11.2.0 2.36 ok
11.2.0 2.37 ok
11.2.0 2.38 ok
11.3.0 2.35 ok
11.3.0 2.36 ok
11.3.0 2.37 ok
11.3.0 2.38 ok
11.4.0 2.35 ok
11.4.0 2.36 ok
11.4.0 2.37 ok
11.4.0 2.38 ok
12.1.0 2.35 ok
12.1.0 2.36 ok
12.1.0 2.37 ok
12.1.0 2.38 ok
12.2.0 2.35 ok
12.2.0 2.36 ok
12.2.0 2.37 ok
12.2.0 2.38 ok
[1]
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=f0bae2552db1dd4f1995608fbf6648fcee4e9e0c
[2]
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=ca2bbb88f999f4d3cc40e89bc1aba712505dd598
[3]
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=d29f5d6ab513c52fd872f532c492e35ae9fd6671
Thanks,
Mingzheng.
Thanks,
Conor.
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
