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@kernel.org wrote:

...

Hello:

This patch was applied to riscv/linux.git (fixes) by Palmer Dabbelt palmer@rivosinc.com:

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%3Ba=commit%3Bh=f0bae2552db1dd...

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%3Ba=commit%3Bh=f0bae2552db1dd... [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git%3Ba=commit%3Bh=ca2bbb88f999f4d3cc40e89bc1... [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git%3Ba=commit%3Bh=d29f5d6ab513c52fd872f532c4...

Thanks, Mingzheng.

...

Thanks, Conor.

---

linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv