This was reverted in f985a8826bfa4ca3d23e654185de35e30ea6dc79. Since that,
the default WMO lowering has moved to A67 compatible, the ABI attribute
emission has landed (off by default), and the LLD change to merge said
attributes have landed. Our ztso lowering is believed to also be A67
compatible, and no known issues remain.
Original commit message:
Ztso 1.0 was ratified in January 2023.
Documentation:
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/blob/main/src/ztso-st-ext.adoc
The previous version of the document did not prefix the intrinsic names
with `__riscv_`. That has been corrected now. We have always implemented
the intrinsics with the `__riscv_` prefix so now the documentation
matches our implementation.
The document is now labeled as 1.1, but I have not changed the extension
version in the compiler since it was only changing the intrinsic names.
These extensions had their version number bumped and still experimental
(under public review). I didn't see anything in the [commit
history](https://github.com/riscv/riscv-j-extension/commits/master/)
since #79929 that would warrant a change to the implementation of
pointer masking in the compiler.
Specification link:
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/blob/main/src/indirect-csr.adoc
Some CSRs (`*ireg` and `*iselect`) in Smcsrind/Sscsrind extensions are
originally defined as part of the Smaia/Ssaia extensions and are already
supported in LLVM. The missing CSRs (`*ireg2` to `*ireg6` for `m`, `s`,
and `vs`) are added in this PR.
It seems that we have `B` extension again:
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-b
According to the spec, `B` extension represents the collection of
the `Zba`, `Zbb`, `Zbs` extensions.
Though it hasn't been ratified, I set its version to `1.0`.
These were in LLVM 17 but removed from LLVM 18 due to an incorrect
extension name being used.
This restores them with new extension names that match SiFive's
downstream compiler. The extension name has been used internally for
some time. It uses XSiFive instead of XSf like the newer extensions.
`cease` did not have an internal extension name so its using the `XSf`
convention.
The spec for the instructions is here
https://sifive.cdn.prismic.io/sifive/767804da-53b2-4893-97d5-b7c030ae0a94_s76mc_core_complex_manual_21G3.pdf
though the extension name is not listed.
Column width in the extension printing had to be changed to accommodate
a longer extension name.
This patch implements the codegen support of zabha (Byte and Halfword
Atomic Memory Operations) v1.0-rc1 extension.
See also https://github.com/riscv/riscv-zabha/blob/v1.0-rc1/zabha.adoc.
---------
Co-authored-by: Craig Topper <craig.topper@sifive.com>
Using a single underscore creates a reference target. If the target
name has the same name as another link, we get a "Duplicate target name"
warning. This is currently happening for Ssqosid.
Using __ prevents this. I've converted all links so no one trips over
this in the future.
One link was missing any underscores so wasn't a link at all in the
generated html.
This patch implements the v0.8.1 specification. This patch reports
version 0.8 in llvm since `RISCVISAInfo::ExtensionVersion` only has a
`Major` and `Minor` version number. This patch includes includes support
of the `Ssnpm`, `Smnpm`, `Smmpm`, `Sspm` and `Supm` extensions that make
up RISC-V pointer masking.
All of these extensions require emitting attribute containing correct
`march` string.
`Ssnpm`, `Smnpm`, `Smmpm` extensions introduce a 2-bit WARL field (PMM).
The extension does not specify how PMM is set, and therefore this patch
does not need to address this. One example of how it *could* be set is
using the Zicsr instructions to update the PMM bits of the described
registers.
The full specification can be found at
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-j-extension/blob/master/zjpm-spec.pdf
This is a good portion of the extensions mentioned in the RVA23 profile
here
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-profiles/blob/main/rva23-profile.adoc
I don't believe these add any new CSRs. Sstc does add new CSRs, but we
already added them without the extension name a while back.
I tried to keep the descriptions in RISCVFeatures.td fairly short since
the strings show up in `-print-supported-extensions`.
The Zicond extension was ratified in the last few months, with no
changes that affect the LLVM implementation. Although there's surely
more tuning that could be done about when to select Zicond or not, there
are no known correctness issues. Therefore, we should mark support as
non-experimental.
This adds minimal support for 7 new unprivileged extensions that were
defined as a part of
the RISC-V Profiles specification here:
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-profiles/blob/main/profiles.adoc#7-new-isa-extensions
* Ziccif: Main memory supports instruction fetch with atomicity
requirement
* Ziccrse: Main memory supports forward progress on LR/SC sequences
* Ziccamoa: Main memory supports all atomics in A
* Zicclsm: Main memory supports misaligned loads/stores
* Za64rs: Reservation set size of 64 bytes
* Za128rs: Reservation set size of 128 bytes
* Zic64b: Cache block size isf 64 bytes
As stated in the specification, these extensions don't add any new
features but
describe existing features. So this patch only adds parsing and
subtarget
features.
This commit includes the necessary changes to clang and LLVM to support
codegen of `RVE` and the `ilp32e`/`lp64e` ABIs.
The differences between `RVE` and `RVI` are:
* `RVE` reduces the integer register count to 16(x0-x16).
* The ABI should be `ilp32e` for 32 bits and `lp64e` for 64 bits.
`RVE` can be combined with all current standard extensions.
The central changes in ilp32e/lp64e ABI, compared to ilp32/lp64 are:
* Only 6 integer argument registers (rather than 8).
* Only 2 callee-saved registers (rather than 12).
* A Stack Alignment of 32bits (rather than 128bits).
* ilp32e isn't compatible with D ISA extension.
If `ilp32e` or `lp64` is used with an ISA that has any of the registers
x16-x31 and f0-f31, then these registers are considered temporaries.
To be compatible with the implementation of ilp32e in GCC, we don't use
aligned registers to pass variadic arguments and set stack alignment\
to 4-bytes for types with length of 2*XLEN.
FastCC is also supported on RVE, while GHC isn't since there is only one
avaiable register.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70401
The patch adds the instructions in Zicfiss extension. Zicfiss extension
is to support shadow stack for control flow integrity. This patch is
based on version [0.3.1].
[0.3.1]: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-cfi/releases/tag/v0.3.1
This reverts 0d3eee33f262402562a1ff28106dbb2f59031bdb and
4c37d30e22ae655394c8b3a7e292c06d393b9b44.
XSfcie is not an official SiFive extension name. It stands for
SiFive Custom Instruction Extension, which is mentioned in the S76
manual, but then elsewhere in the manual says it is not supported
for S76.
LLVM had various instructions and CSRs listed as part of this
extension, but as far as SiFive is concerned, none of them are part
of it. There are no documented extension names for these instructions
and CSRs either externally or internally.
If these are important to LLVM users, I can facilitate creating
extension names for them and have them documented. For now I'm
removing everything.
Unfortunately, these instructions and CSRs are in LLVM 17 so this
is an incompatible change.
This implements experimental support for the Zimop extension as
specified here:
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/blob/main/src/zimop.adoc.
This change adds only assembly support.
---------
Co-authored-by: ln8-8 <lyut.nersisyan@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: ln8-8 <73429801+ln8-8@users.noreply.github.com>
The RISC-V vector crypto extensions have been ratified. This patch
updates the Clang and LLVM support for these extensions to be
non-experimental, while leaving the C intrinsics as experimental since
the C intrinsics are not yet standardized.
Co-authored-by: Brandon Wu <brandon.wu@sifive.com>
Zcmp codegen is implemented (see RISCVMoveMerger and
RISCVPushPopOptimizer), while Zicbop instructions are selected for
llvm.prefetch instrinsics. So I believe it's correct to mark both as
"Supported" and this is just an oversight.
Following the version bump in #67964 and the bug fix in #68026 I believe
we're ready to mark Zfa as non-experimental. I'll note the GCC torture
suite passes now with Zfa enabled (though it's more of a litmus test
than anything else).
The Zfa specification was recently ratified
<https://wiki.riscv.org/display/HOME/Recently+Ratified+Extensions>. This
commit bumps the version to 1.0, but leaves it as an experimental
extension (to be done in a follow-on patch), so reviews can focus on
confirming there haven't been spec changes we have missed (which as
noted below, is more difficult than usual).
Because the development of the Zfa spec overlapped with the transition
of riscv-isa-manual from LaTeX to AsciiDoc, it's more difficult than
usual to confirm version changes. The linked PDF in RISCVUsage is for
some reason a 404. Key commit histories to review are:
* Changes to zfa.adoc on the main branch
<https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commits/main/src/zfa.adoc>
* Changes to zfa.tex on the now defunct latex branch
<https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commits/latex/src/zfa.tex>
From reviewing these, I believe there have been no changes to the spec
since version 0.1/0.2 (sadly the AsciiDoc and LaTeX versions of the spec
are inconsistent about version numbering).
Since zihintntl is ratified now, we could remove the experimental prefix and change its version to 1.0.
Reviewed By: asb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D151547
Implement XCVbi intrinsics for CV32E40P according to the specification.
This commit is part of a patch-set to upstream the 7 vendor specific extensions of CV32E40P.
Contributors: @CharKeaney, @jeremybennett, @lewis-revill, @liaolucy, Nandni Jamnadas, @paolos, @simoncook, @xmj.
bf2ad26b4ff856aab9a62ad168e6bdefeedc374f originally commited.
e4777dc4b9cb371971523cc603e1b8a5c7255e7e reverted due to test failures caused by a merge conflict marker in llvm/test/CodeGen/RISCV/attributes that was accidentally checked in.
This commit removed the conflict marker and recommitted.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D154412
