D.gnu - gdc for rv32&64
- Mahdi (4/4) Aug 15 2021 Hi Iain Buclaw, we appreciate your efforts in the d for the gnu
- max haughton (5/9) Aug 15 2021 explore.dgnu.org
- Mahdi (6/15) Aug 15 2021 Thanks Max, I played with explore.dgnu.org and it doesn't seem to
- max haughton (4/21) Aug 15 2021 By elf target you mean that it doesn't assume the existence of
- Mahdi (5/8) Aug 16 2021 I don't know, so far I have worked on each C target with
- Iain Buclaw (13/30) Aug 16 2021 The list of targets on that site is only what's present in
- Mahdi (3/6) Aug 16 2021 Very good! If LWDR works on risc-v, it would be great. I thought
- Iain Buclaw (9/16) Aug 16 2021 There's nothing specifically tied to ARM in LWDR per-say. Maybe
- Mahdi (4/14) Aug 17 2021 Why does a simple or empty Hello program generate a lot of
- max haughton (2/7) Aug 17 2021 Need an example.
- Mahdi (8/16) Aug 18 2021 A helloworld program on the X86_64-pc-linux-gnu platform contains
- Iain Buclaw (4/21) Aug 18 2021 A Phobos helloworld is over 1000 lines of assembly on both x86_64
- jfondren (18/32) Aug 23 2021 This can be confirmed locally with objdump, to reveal a bunch of
Hi Iain Buclaw, we appreciate your efforts in the d for the gnu ecosystem. but what is the status of gdc for risc-v architecture, especially newlib?
Aug 15 2021
On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 15:03:26 UTC, Mahdi wrote:Hi Iain Buclaw, we appreciate your efforts in the d for the gnu ecosystem. but what is the status of gdc for risc-v architecture, especially newlib?explore.dgnu.org Have a play with that, RISC-V should work perfectly fine for low level things like MCUs. Now, as for druntime and Phobos I'm not sure, you'll probably have to look at the source code.
Aug 15 2021
On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 17:22:28 UTC, max haughton wrote:On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 15:03:26 UTC, Mahdi wrote:Thanks Max, I played with explore.dgnu.org and it doesn't seem to have a problem with risc-v64&32-linux-gnu, but unfortunately it still doesn't support riscv64-elf target. This target (elf) is much more suitable for writing metal-bare or operation system goals.Hi Iain Buclaw, we appreciate your efforts in the d for the gnu ecosystem. but what is the status of gdc for risc-v architecture, especially newlib?explore.dgnu.org Have a play with that, RISC-V should work perfectly fine for low level things like MCUs. Now, as for druntime and Phobos I'm not sure, you'll probably have to look at the source code.
Aug 15 2021
On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 19:42:11 UTC, Mahdi wrote:On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 17:22:28 UTC, max haughton wrote:By elf target you mean that it doesn't assume the existence of Linux APIs? What's the difference? It will be outputting an elf binaryOn Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 15:03:26 UTC, Mahdi wrote:Thanks Max, I played with explore.dgnu.org and it doesn't seem to have a problem with risc-v64&32-linux-gnu, but unfortunately it still doesn't support riscv64-elf target. This target (elf) is much more suitable for writing metal-bare or operation system goals.Hi Iain Buclaw, we appreciate your efforts in the d for the gnu ecosystem. but what is the status of gdc for risc-v architecture, especially newlib?explore.dgnu.org Have a play with that, RISC-V should work perfectly fine for low level things like MCUs. Now, as for druntime and Phobos I'm not sure, you'll probably have to look at the source code.
Aug 15 2021
Mahdi <ubuntulove74 gmail.com> On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 20:11:23 UTC, max haughton wrote:By elf target you mean that it doesn't assume the existence of Linux APIs? What's the difference? It will be outputting an elf binaryI don't know, so far I have worked on each C target with riscv64-unknown-elf-gcc, So far I have never worked with any bare-metal target with riscv64-linux-gnu-gcc.
Aug 16 2021
On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 19:42:11 UTC, Mahdi wrote:On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 17:22:28 UTC, max haughton wrote:The list of targets on that site is only what's present in [contrib/config-list.mk](https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/91292490d573f9f9e4f162d6d8c693a969197f2d/contrib/confi -list.mk#L32-L105), which is just a bunch of configurations that try to cover the broadest test vectors of the compiler back-end, and is in no way the full range of supported targets of GDC. There is no difference between the -linux and -elf sub-targets of RISC-V, other than one you can build Phobos with, and the other you can't. As for Newlib, the predefined version condition exists (but only for Cygwin), but no one has yet ported Druntime to Newlib. It might make sense to assume that Newlib will always be available on ELF/Fuchsia/RTEMS, but I haven't seen the need to build either Druntime/Phobos for any of the bare-metal targets, as you'll more likely be providing your own minimal Druntime, or using any of the existing ones, such as Minlibd or LWDR.On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 15:03:26 UTC, Mahdi wrote:Thanks Max, I played with explore.dgnu.org and it doesn't seem to have a problem with risc-v64&32-linux-gnu, but unfortunately it still doesn't support riscv64-elf target. This target (elf) is much more suitable for writing metal-bare or operation system goals.Hi Iain Buclaw, we appreciate your efforts in the d for the gnu ecosystem. but what is the status of gdc for risc-v architecture, especially newlib?explore.dgnu.org Have a play with that, RISC-V should work perfectly fine for low level things like MCUs. Now, as for druntime and Phobos I'm not sure, you'll probably have to look at the source code.
Aug 16 2021
On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 08:43:40 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:The list of targets on that site is only what's present in [contrib/config-list.mk](https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/91292490d573f9f9e4f162d6d8c693a969197f2d/contrib/confi -list.mk#L32-L105), which is just a bunch of configurations that try to cover the broadest test vectors of the compiler back-end, and is in no way the full range of supported targets of GDC. [...]Very good! If LWDR works on risc-v, it would be great. I thought it only works on ARM targets.
Aug 16 2021
On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:28:41 UTC, Mahdi wrote:On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 08:43:40 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:There's nothing specifically tied to ARM in LWDR per-say. Maybe that'll change once exception support gets added (ARM EABI unwinder follows a different ABI), but I'm sure that can be coordinated with the maintainer to ensure both ARM EABI and Itanium can be toggled with a version flag. The only prerequisite for LWDR I am aware of is that you must provide implementations for [these helper functions](https://github.com/hmmdyl/LWDR/blob/d55a39d028942f0eb1582d473317f89030995703/source/ toslink.d#L14-L34), which would just wrap around Newlib in your case. Whether the wrapper is in C or D doesn't matter. The only difference is that you'll have to write out the extern(C) bindings yourself if in D.The list of targets on that site is only what's present in [contrib/config-list.mk](https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/91292490d573f9f9e4f162d6d8c693a969197f2d/contrib/confi -list.mk#L32-L105), which is just a bunch of configurations that try to cover the broadest test vectors of the compiler back-end, and is in no way the full range of supported targets of GDC. [...]Very good! If LWDR works on risc-v, it would be great. I thought it only works on ARM targets.
Aug 16 2021
On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 10:05:08 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:28:41 UTC, Mahdi wrote:Why does a simple or empty Hello program generate a lot of assembly output for the risc-v architecture, but not for the ARM and X86 architectures?[...]There's nothing specifically tied to ARM in LWDR per-say. Maybe that'll change once exception support gets added (ARM EABI unwinder follows a different ABI), but I'm sure that can be coordinated with the maintainer to ensure both ARM EABI and Itanium can be toggled with a version flag. The only prerequisite for LWDR I am aware of is that you must provide implementations for [these helper functions](https://github.com/hmmdyl/LWDR/blob/d55a39d028942f0eb1582d473317f89030995703/source/ toslink.d#L14-L34), which would just wrap around Newlib in your case. Whether the wrapper is in C or D doesn't matter. The only difference is that you'll have to write out the extern(C) bindings yourself if in D.
Aug 17 2021
On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 18:39:27 UTC, Mahdi wrote:On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 10:05:08 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:Need an example.[...]Why does a simple or empty Hello program generate a lot of assembly output for the risc-v architecture, but not for the ARM and X86 architectures?
Aug 17 2021
On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 20:39:29 UTC, max haughton wrote:On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 18:39:27 UTC, Mahdi wrote:A helloworld program on the X86_64-pc-linux-gnu platform contains 40 lines of assembly code or on the ARM (aarch64-linux-gnu) platform only 34 lines of assembly code, but on the risc-v(riscv64-unknow-gnu-linux) platform contains 871 lines of code on the explore.dgnu.org site! I'm concerned that this will affect the performance of the risc-v platform.On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 10:05:08 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:Need an example.[...]Why does a simple or empty Hello program generate a lot of assembly output for the risc-v architecture, but not for the ARM and X86 architectures?
Aug 18 2021
On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 07:08:09 UTC, Mahdi wrote:On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 20:39:29 UTC, max haughton wrote:A Phobos helloworld is over 1000 lines of assembly on both x86_64 and ARM64. My guess is that Compiler Explorer isn't smart enough to filter RISC-V assembly in the same way as ARM or X86.On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 18:39:27 UTC, Mahdi wrote:A helloworld program on the X86_64-pc-linux-gnu platform contains 40 lines of assembly code or on the ARM (aarch64-linux-gnu) platform only 34 lines of assembly code, but on the risc-v(riscv64-unknow-gnu-linux) platform contains 871 lines of code on the explore.dgnu.org site! I'm concerned that this will affect the performance of the risc-v platform.On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 10:05:08 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:Need an example.[...]Why does a simple or empty Hello program generate a lot of assembly output for the risc-v architecture, but not for the ARM and X86 architectures?
Aug 18 2021
On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 08:09:36 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 07:08:09 UTC, Mahdi wrote:This can be confirmed locally with objdump, to reveal a bunch of code that's filtered out by default: ``` $ cat hello.d void main() { import std.stdio : writeln; writeln("Hello, world!"); } $ gdc hello.d $ objdump -dwr --no-show-raw-insn a.out | grep -m1 isValidDchar | ddemangle 3179a: call 6b870 <pure nothrow nogc safe bool std.utf.isValidDchar(dchar)> ``` You can also confirm it the Compiler Explorer by opening the Filter menu, below the compiler selection and "Compiler options..." input, and unchecking the 'Directives' filter.A helloworld program on the X86_64-pc-linux-gnu platform contains 40 lines of assembly code or on the ARM (aarch64-linux-gnu) platform only 34 lines of assembly code, but on the risc-v(riscv64-unknow-gnu-linux) platform contains 871 lines of code on the explore.dgnu.org site! I'm concerned that this will affect the performance of the risc-v platform.A Phobos helloworld is over 1000 lines of assembly on both x86_64 and ARM64. My guess is that Compiler Explorer isn't smart enough to filter RISC-V assembly in the same way as ARM or X86.
Aug 23 2021