Relax the naming rule of extension name #718
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
This renders the parsing of Zfoo1p0 ambiguous |
|
How about if we require the trailing alphabetical character must not be "p"? EDIT: oops, I see @jrtc27 already pointed this out riscv/riscv-v-spec#729 (comment) |
kito-cheng
force-pushed
the
nameing-rule
branch
from
8e0cc05
to
2b456f0
Compare
|
Changes:
|
There is a zbp extension from bit manipulation, although it's not included in the ratification package this time, so I add a complicated rule for that :p and let @aswaterman and @kasanovic to make the final decision. |
Current spec only allow alphabetical name, which means we can't use number in the name, but we already defined serveral extension name with number, like `zve32x`, `zvl128b`.
- The second letter from the bottom cannot be a numeric if the last letter is ``p'' - For example, Zfoo1p0 is ambiguou without this extra rule: Zfoo1p extension with version 0 or Zfoo extension with version 1.0.
kito-cheng
force-pushed
the
nameing-rule
branch
from
2b456f0
to
311ea1f
Compare
|
@eopXD Thanks :) |
|
Changes:
|
|
Note that #688 also changes this same extension naming section. |
nstester
pushed a commit
to nstester/gcc
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2022
RISC-V spec only allow alphabetical name for extension before, however vector extension add several extension named with digits, so we try to extend the naming rule. Ref: riscv/riscv-isa-manual#718 gcc/ChangeLog: * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.c (riscv_subset_list::parse_multiletter_ext): Allow ext. name has digit.
tylerchen0619
pushed a commit
to andestech/gcc
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 1, 2023
RISC-V spec only allow alphabetical name for extension before, however vector extension add several extension named with digits, so we try to extend the naming rule. Ref: riscv/riscv-isa-manual#718 gcc/ChangeLog: * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.c (riscv_subset_list::parse_multiletter_ext): Allow ext. name has digit.
asb
added a commit
to llvm/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 25, 2023
…s/versions in RISC-V attributes This patch follows on from this RFC thread <https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-resolving-issues-related-to-extension-versioning-in-risc-v/68472/> and the ensuing discussion in the RISC-V LLVM sync-up call. The consensus agreed that the behaviour change in LLD introduced in D138550 that results in object files including arch attributes with unrecognised extensions or versions of extensions is a regression and should be treated as such. As it stands, this logic means that LLD will error out if trying to link a RISC-V object file from LLVM HEAD (rv32i2p0/rv64i2p0) with one from current GCC (rv32i2p1/rv64i2p1 by default). There's a bigger discussion about exactly when to warn vs error and so on, and how to control that, and this patch doesn't attempt to address all those questions. It simply tries to fix the problem with a minimally invasive change, intended to be cherry-picked for 16.0.x (ideally 16.0.0, but queued for 16.0.1 if we're too late in the release cycle). As you can see from the test changes, although the changed logic is mostly more permissive, it will reject some embedded arch strings that were accepted before. Because the same logic was previously used for parsing human-written -march as for the arch attribute (intended to be stored in normalised form), various short-hand formats were previously accepted. Maintaining support for such ill-formed attributes would substantially complicate the logic, and given the previous implementation was so much stricter in every other way, was surely a bug rather than a design choice. Surprisingly, the precise rules for how numbers can be embedded into extension names isn't fully defined (there is a PR to the ISA manual that is not yet merged <riscv/riscv-isa-manual#718>). In the absence of specific criteria for rejecting extensions names that would be ambiguous in abbreviated form, `RISCVISAInfo::parseArchStringNormalized` just pulls out the version information from the end of each extension description. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144353
llvmbot
pushed a commit
to llvm/llvm-project-release-prs
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 25, 2023
…s/versions in RISC-V attributes This patch follows on from this RFC thread <https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-resolving-issues-related-to-extension-versioning-in-risc-v/68472/> and the ensuing discussion in the RISC-V LLVM sync-up call. The consensus agreed that the behaviour change in LLD introduced in D138550 that results in object files including arch attributes with unrecognised extensions or versions of extensions is a regression and should be treated as such. As it stands, this logic means that LLD will error out if trying to link a RISC-V object file from LLVM HEAD (rv32i2p0/rv64i2p0) with one from current GCC (rv32i2p1/rv64i2p1 by default). There's a bigger discussion about exactly when to warn vs error and so on, and how to control that, and this patch doesn't attempt to address all those questions. It simply tries to fix the problem with a minimally invasive change, intended to be cherry-picked for 16.0.x (ideally 16.0.0, but queued for 16.0.1 if we're too late in the release cycle). As you can see from the test changes, although the changed logic is mostly more permissive, it will reject some embedded arch strings that were accepted before. Because the same logic was previously used for parsing human-written -march as for the arch attribute (intended to be stored in normalised form), various short-hand formats were previously accepted. Maintaining support for such ill-formed attributes would substantially complicate the logic, and given the previous implementation was so much stricter in every other way, was surely a bug rather than a design choice. Surprisingly, the precise rules for how numbers can be embedded into extension names isn't fully defined (there is a PR to the ISA manual that is not yet merged <riscv/riscv-isa-manual#718>). In the absence of specific criteria for rejecting extensions names that would be ambiguous in abbreviated form, `RISCVISAInfo::parseArchStringNormalized` just pulls out the version information from the end of each extension description. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144353 (cherry picked from commit ff93c9b)
tru
pushed a commit
to llvm/llvm-project-release-prs
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 27, 2023
…s/versions in RISC-V attributes This patch follows on from this RFC thread <https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-resolving-issues-related-to-extension-versioning-in-risc-v/68472/> and the ensuing discussion in the RISC-V LLVM sync-up call. The consensus agreed that the behaviour change in LLD introduced in D138550 that results in object files including arch attributes with unrecognised extensions or versions of extensions is a regression and should be treated as such. As it stands, this logic means that LLD will error out if trying to link a RISC-V object file from LLVM HEAD (rv32i2p0/rv64i2p0) with one from current GCC (rv32i2p1/rv64i2p1 by default). There's a bigger discussion about exactly when to warn vs error and so on, and how to control that, and this patch doesn't attempt to address all those questions. It simply tries to fix the problem with a minimally invasive change, intended to be cherry-picked for 16.0.x (ideally 16.0.0, but queued for 16.0.1 if we're too late in the release cycle). As you can see from the test changes, although the changed logic is mostly more permissive, it will reject some embedded arch strings that were accepted before. Because the same logic was previously used for parsing human-written -march as for the arch attribute (intended to be stored in normalised form), various short-hand formats were previously accepted. Maintaining support for such ill-formed attributes would substantially complicate the logic, and given the previous implementation was so much stricter in every other way, was surely a bug rather than a design choice. Surprisingly, the precise rules for how numbers can be embedded into extension names isn't fully defined (there is a PR to the ISA manual that is not yet merged <riscv/riscv-isa-manual#718>). In the absence of specific criteria for rejecting extensions names that would be ambiguous in abbreviated form, `RISCVISAInfo::parseArchStringNormalized` just pulls out the version information from the end of each extension description. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144353 (cherry picked from commit ff93c9b)
CarlosAlbertoEnciso
pushed a commit
to SNSystems/llvm-debuginfo-analyzer
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 27, 2023
…s/versions in RISC-V attributes This patch follows on from this RFC thread <https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-resolving-issues-related-to-extension-versioning-in-risc-v/68472/> and the ensuing discussion in the RISC-V LLVM sync-up call. The consensus agreed that the behaviour change in LLD introduced in D138550 that results in object files including arch attributes with unrecognised extensions or versions of extensions is a regression and should be treated as such. As it stands, this logic means that LLD will error out if trying to link a RISC-V object file from LLVM HEAD (rv32i2p0/rv64i2p0) with one from current GCC (rv32i2p1/rv64i2p1 by default). There's a bigger discussion about exactly when to warn vs error and so on, and how to control that, and this patch doesn't attempt to address all those questions. It simply tries to fix the problem with a minimally invasive change, intended to be cherry-picked for 16.0.x (ideally 16.0.0, but queued for 16.0.1 if we're too late in the release cycle). As you can see from the test changes, although the changed logic is mostly more permissive, it will reject some embedded arch strings that were accepted before. Because the same logic was previously used for parsing human-written -march as for the arch attribute (intended to be stored in normalised form), various short-hand formats were previously accepted. Maintaining support for such ill-formed attributes would substantially complicate the logic, and given the previous implementation was so much stricter in every other way, was surely a bug rather than a design choice. Surprisingly, the precise rules for how numbers can be embedded into extension names isn't fully defined (there is a PR to the ISA manual that is not yet merged <riscv/riscv-isa-manual#718>). In the absence of specific criteria for rejecting extensions names that would be ambiguous in abbreviated form, `RISCVISAInfo::parseArchStringNormalized` just pulls out the version information from the end of each extension description. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144353
pz9115
pushed a commit
to pz9115/revyos-gcc
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 22, 2023
RISC-V spec only allow alphabetical name for extension before, however vector extension add several extension named with digits, so we try to extend the naming rule. Ref: riscv/riscv-isa-manual#718 gcc/ChangeLog: * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.c (riscv_subset_list::parse_multiletter_ext): Allow ext. name has digit.
yulong18
pushed a commit
to yulong18/ruyisdk-gcc
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 22, 2024
RISC-V spec only allow alphabetical name for extension before, however vector extension add several extension named with digits, so we try to extend the naming rule. Ref: riscv/riscv-isa-manual#718 gcc/ChangeLog: * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.c (riscv_subset_list::parse_multiletter_ext): Allow ext. name has digit.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Current spec only allow alphabetical name, which means we can't use number in
the name, but we already defined serveral extension name with number,
like
zve32x,zvl128b.So this PR try to make the rule up to date and add one more rule to restrict the name must end with alphabetical to prevent ambiguous with version number.