Add RISC-V Profiles format #36

pz9115 · 2023-05-02T12:38:06Z

This is a subset work form #26.
Add RISC-V Profiles format only. The doc record in:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TZXRIgVfQHWQ6xrZflHXUCSav6xNmliojrW2bEsvPno/edit.

README.mkd

preames · 2023-07-17T15:59:42Z

This got briefly brought up during the SIG toolchain meeting today, but got rapidly derailed into a process discussion. Since the root point seems important, I am repeating it here.

In addition to defining the syntax for the -march string for profiles, there is a separate set of task items required to define and implement support for each of the new extensions which were defined in the ratified profile document.

From the perspective of LLVM, my current intent is to make the support for all the various extensions a blocker for merging the -march profile parsing support. This may evolve, and I'm open to the arguments on why we should adopt a different posture, but that argument will need to be explicitly made.

pz9115 · 2023-07-17T16:15:20Z

This got briefly brought up during the SIG toolchain meeting today, but got rapidly derailed into a process discussion. Since the root point seems important, I am repeating it here.

In addition to defining the syntax for the -march string for profiles, there is a separate set of task items required to define and implement support for each of the new extensions which were defined in the ratified profile document.

From the perspective of LLVM, my current intent is to make the support for all the various extensions a blocker for merging the -march profile parsing support. This may evolve, and I'm open to the arguments on why we should adopt a different posture, but that argument will need to be explicitly made.

You are right, Christoph added a comment here riscv-admin/dev-partners#16 (comment). In fact, we need to nothing until those new extensions are actually ratified(more details are needed in extenisons specification to approach). So I think maybe is a good idea that only implements the new extensions' names in toolchain Profiles support.

README.mkd

TommyMurphyTM1234 · 2023-07-18T13:09:46Z

README.mkd

+To distinguish between ordinary extension input and input with profiles,
+profiles are assumed to be entered `at the beginning of the -march option`, and
+then input other extensions. Profiles `should use uppercase letters` in the `-march`
+option.


Incorrect placement of code (backtick) markup?

I'm trying to emphasize here the rules for using, do you have any good solutions?

Suggested change

To distinguish between ordinary extension input and input with profiles,

profiles are assumed to be entered `at the beginning of the -march option`, and

then input other extensions. Profiles `should use uppercase letters` in the `-march`

option.

To distinguish between ordinary extension input and input with profiles,

profiles are assumed to be entered `at the beginning of the -march option`, and

then input other extensions. Profiles *should use uppercase letters* in the `-march`

option.

README.mkd

cmuellner · 2023-10-09T14:50:45Z

The status of the profiles support was briefly discussed in today's SIG toolchain call:

this was discussed at the GNU Cauldron with Kito and Palmer (I did not attend, therefore I can't say exactly what was discussed there)
patches are expected to get on the list this month (October 2023)

cmuellner · 2023-11-20T20:56:23Z

An initial patch was sent to the GCC mailing list today: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/637490.html

jrtc27 · 2023-11-21T07:23:58Z

Uppercase strings being required in things like -march is very unusual; I would be much more in favour of keeping things lowercase

cmuellner · 2023-12-22T16:15:31Z

The architecture review committee has sent out the following text about how profiles support in toolchains should look like:

In response to some recent discussion in the Apps and Tools HC about how profiles should be represented in GCC/LLVM, the ARC provides this answer: compilers should use a single parameter for an ISA string. An ISA string begins with either a base ISA name (e.g. rv64i) or a profile name (e.g. rva23u64) and is optionally followed by additional extensions (e.g. rv64imac_zicond or rva23u64_zfh_zicond). If the ISA string begins with a profile name, it is equivalent to replacing the profile name with its mandatory base ISA and its mandatory extensions; any optional extensions in a profile must be explicitly named if their inclusion is desired. ISAs are sets, and concatenating strings takes the union, so redundancy is legal (e.g. rva23u64, rva23u64_zicsr, and rva23u64_zicsr_zicsr are all valid and equivalent).

https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-unprivileged/message/611

wangpc-pp · 2023-12-25T11:08:39Z

Draft LLVM implementation: llvm/llvm-project#76357.

This PR implements the draft riscv-non-isa/riscv-toolchain-conventions#36. Currently, we replace specified profile in `-march` with standard arch string. We may need to pass it to backend so that we can emit an ELF attr proposed by riscv-non-isa/riscv-elf-psabi-doc#409.

wangpc-pp · 2024-02-07T07:16:14Z

Reverse ping. Is there any progress?

cmuellner · 2024-02-07T07:59:12Z

The GCC implementation is tracked here: riscv-admin/dev-partners#16.

There was a request to wait on the GCC patch regarding the adoption of profiles in toolchain components: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-December/641025.html.

So, at this point, we have clear guidelines from RVI regarding the adoption. We have this PR, and we have patches for GCC and LLVM. This can all move forward if upstream maintainers are fine with it.

Given the relatively low impact on toolchains, I'm fine with waiting until the GCC 15 branch opens up.
LLVM might move on earlier.

This PR implements the draft riscv-non-isa/riscv-toolchain-conventions#36. Currently, we replace specified profile in `-march` with standard arch string.

pz9115 · 2025-01-07T08:41:14Z

The text in this PR currently differs from the ARC decision mentioned in #36 (comment) and the implementation in LLVM in llvm/llvm-project#76357 in two significant ways:

Profile names are specified in lowercase, not uppercase

Additional extensions are specified with _ as the separator, not +

I worry that this inconsistency might cause compatibility issues.

Sync the format with LLVM implement, using lowercase and _ in Profiles format.

wangpc-pp · 2025-01-07T09:04:59Z

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc

+
+Profiles format has the following BNF form `"-march="<profile-name>"_"[option-ext]*`.
+
+`profile-name ::= "RV"<profile-family-name><profile-ratified-year><privilege-mode><ISA-XLEN>`


The naming convention of profiles may not be like this any more if I read what the sig-profiles (https://lists.riscv.org/g/sig-profiles/message/83) is doing rightly. The proposed profile naming is here (I don't know if every one can read it): https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xXIMnk1MNRZIp9fnW0yzBvnRnqko0LJT0XUjUvDVZ4/
So, I think, here we can just say that profile-name will be a valid list of released profiles. As for the format, we should refer to the document of profiles.

Ok，it sounds great, will update it in new version.

Then we don't need these eBNFs?

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc

topperc · 2025-01-08T00:52:23Z

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc

+`option-ext ::= 'a legal RISC-V extension name'`
+
+As the spec defines, to use the profiles it should follow profile naming convention
+(See [3.4 form spec doc](https://github.com/riscv/riscv-profiles)), the toolchain


", the toolchain will check" should be the start of a new sentence.

topperc · 2025-01-08T00:54:10Z

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc

+
+`option-ext ::= 'a legal RISC-V extension name'`
+
+As the spec defines, to use the profiles it should follow profile naming convention


This sentence is kind of awkward.

topperc · 2025-01-08T00:56:02Z

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc

@@ -216,6 +216,43 @@ As of November 2021 the additional tail-call entry points are only
 implemented in compiler-rt, and calls will only be generated by LLVM
 when the option `-mllvm -save-restore-tailcall` is specified.

+== Profile-based format
+
+Profiles name will be a valid list of released profiles, it should be recognized and used


"Profiles name" -> "Profile names" if we are talking about a list of names of multiple profiles.

topperc · 2025-01-08T00:56:49Z

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc

+
+`profile-family-name ::= "i" | "m" | "a"`
+
+`profile-ratified-year-version ::= "20" | "22" | "23A" | "23B"`


Aren't the profiles named rva23 and rvb23. There is no A or B after 23.

topperc · 2025-01-08T00:56:56Z

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc

+
+`profile-name ::= "RV"<profile-family-name><profile-ratified-year><privilege-mode><ISA-XLEN>`
+
+`profile-family-name ::= "i" | "m" | "a"`


Missing "b"

topperc · 2025-01-08T00:58:25Z

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc

+
+To distinguish between ordinary extension input and input with profiles,
+profiles are assumed to be entered *at the beginning of the -march option*, and
+then input other extensions. Profiles should input in the `-march` option.


"Profiles should input in the -march option." seems redundant with the previous sentece.

topperc · 2025-01-08T00:59:51Z

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc

+
+`-march=rvi20u64_zbkb_zkne -mabi=lp64` equals `-march=rv64i_zbkb_zkne -mabi=lp64`
+
+`-march=rva22u32` equals `-march=rv64gcb_zic64b_zicbom_zicbop_zicboz_ziccamoa_ziccif_zicclsm_ziccrse_zicntr_zihpm_za64rs_zfhmin_zkt`


There is no rva22u32 profile. I think this should be rva22u64?

Thanks for your comments, fixed in new commit.

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc

kito-cheng

LGTM with one minor comment

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc

wangpc-pp · 2025-02-05T03:46:19Z

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc

+in the `-march=` option. The benefit of using the `-march` option is easy for toolchain
+parsing the profiles string and expanding it into normal extensions combinations. 
+
+Profiles format has the following BNF form `"-march="<profile-name>"_"[option-ext]*`.


The BNF should be "-march="<profile-name>["_"option-ext]*? The underline is optional when there is no optional extra extension.

OK, thanks for the mention, update with new commit.

wangpc-pp

LGTM. Thanks!

pz9115 · 2025-05-07T08:45:46Z

Ping..

kito-cheng · 2025-05-07T09:28:00Z

Could you rebase and squash all commit into one?

kito-cheng

LGTM

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc

Fix typo and adjust examples. Signed-off-by: Jiawei <[email protected]>

cmuellner · 2025-05-12T10:17:59Z

Profiles support landed in GCC: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=43b450e3f72a53c744e77f55393962f1d349373a

Thanks @pz9115!

cmuellner · 2025-05-12T10:29:54Z

@pz9115, the CI complains about a trailing whitespace.

@kito-cheng and others, given the long history of the profile support discussion, I think we should just land this PR as is.
I can still see that there is room for some tweaks regarding the wording, but I don't think this needs to block this PR. Cleanups can be applied later on. Objections?

kito-cheng · 2025-05-12T10:31:39Z

@cmuellner no objection on moving forward this first, we can tweak this later.

pz9115 mentioned this pull request May 2, 2023

Profiles Compilers riscv-admin/dev-partners#16

Closed

13 tasks

asb reviewed May 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

README.mkd Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

kito-cheng reviewed May 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

README.mkd Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

README.mkd Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

README.mkd Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pz9115 requested review from asb and kito-cheng June 29, 2023 04:47

kito-cheng reviewed Jun 30, 2023

View reviewed changes

README.mkd Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pz9115 force-pushed the master branch from 9ff1eb6 to 11a65d4 Compare June 30, 2023 13:14

pz9115 requested a review from kito-cheng July 12, 2023 02:19

topperc reviewed Jul 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

README.mkd Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pz9115 requested a review from topperc July 18, 2023 07:11

TommyMurphyTM1234 reviewed Jul 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

README.mkd Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pz9115 requested a review from TommyMurphyTM1234 July 19, 2023 08:25

kito-cheng mentioned this pull request Dec 7, 2023

[RFC] Defining an ELF attribute for RISC-V target profiles riscv-non-isa/riscv-elf-psabi-doc#409

Closed

wangpc-pp mentioned this pull request Dec 25, 2023

[RISCV] Support RISC-V Profiles in -march option llvm/llvm-project#76357

Merged

wangpc-pp reviewed Jan 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

kito-cheng reviewed Jan 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pz9115 requested review from wangpc-pp and kito-cheng January 7, 2025 12:37

pthariensflame approved these changes Jan 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

topperc reviewed Jan 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

pz9115 requested a review from topperc January 8, 2025 01:56

pthariensflame suggested changes Jan 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pz9115 requested a review from pthariensflame January 13, 2025 08:23

kito-cheng reviewed Jan 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pz9115 requested a review from kito-cheng January 27, 2025 04:14

pthariensflame approved these changes Jan 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

wangpc-pp reviewed Feb 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

pz9115 requested a review from wangpc-pp February 5, 2025 03:51

wangpc-pp approved these changes Feb 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

Add Profile format conventions.

92878ae

pz9115 force-pushed the master branch from 7317c31 to 92878ae Compare May 7, 2025 10:43

kito-cheng approved these changes May 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

topperc reviewed May 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/toolchain-conventions.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Fix typo and adjust examples.

558480c

Fix typo and adjust examples. Signed-off-by: Jiawei <[email protected]>

pz9115 requested a review from topperc May 9, 2025 13:19

cmuellner approved these changes May 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

cmuellner merged commit 040c928 into riscv-non-isa:main May 12, 2025
1 of 2 checks passed

cmuellner mentioned this pull request Jun 16, 2025

Define -march string #26

Closed


		Profiles format has the following BNF form `"-march="<profile-name>"_"[option-ext]*`.

		`profile-name ::= "RV"<profile-family-name><profile-ratified-year><privilege-mode><ISA-XLEN>`


		`option-ext ::= 'a legal RISC-V extension name'`

		As the spec defines, to use the profiles it should follow profile naming convention


		`profile-family-name ::= "i" \| "m" \| "a"`

		`profile-ratified-year-version ::= "20" \| "22" \| "23A" \| "23B"`


		`-march=rvi20u64_zbkb_zkne -mabi=lp64` equals `-march=rv64i_zbkb_zkne -mabi=lp64`

		`-march=rva22u32` equals `-march=rv64gcb_zic64b_zicbom_zicbop_zicboz_ziccamoa_ziccif_zicclsm_ziccrse_zicntr_zihpm_za64rs_zfhmin_zkt`

Add RISC-V Profiles format #36

Add RISC-V Profiles format #36

Uh oh!

Conversation

pz9115 commented May 2, 2023

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

preames commented Jul 17, 2023

Uh oh!

pz9115 commented Jul 17, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cmuellner commented Oct 9, 2023

Uh oh!

cmuellner commented Nov 20, 2023

Uh oh!

jrtc27 commented Nov 21, 2023

Uh oh!

cmuellner commented Dec 22, 2023

Uh oh!

wangpc-pp commented Dec 25, 2023

Uh oh!

wangpc-pp commented Feb 7, 2024

Uh oh!

cmuellner commented Feb 7, 2024

Uh oh!

pz9115 commented Jan 7, 2025

Uh oh!

wangpc-pp Jan 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kito-cheng left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

wangpc-pp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pz9115 commented May 7, 2025

pz9115 commented Jul 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

wangpc-pp Jan 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading