tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/v_exec_initval_nolibc.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Vector registers are zero initialized by the kernel. Stop accepting
"all ones" as a clean value.
Note that this was not working as expected given that
value == 0xff
can be assumed to be always false by the compiler as value's range is
[-128, 127]. Both GCC (-Wtype-limits) and clang
(-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare) warn about this.
Signed-off-by: Ignacio Encinas <ignacio@iencinas.com>
---
I tried looking why "all ones" was previously deemed a "clean" value but
couldn't find any information. It looks like the kernel always
zero-initializes the vector registers.
If "all ones" is still acceptable for any reason, my intention is to
spin a v2 changing the types of `value` and `prev_value` to unsigned
char.
---
tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/v_exec_initval_nolibc.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/v_exec_initval_nolibc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/v_exec_initval_nolibc.c
index 35c0812e32de0c82a54f84bd52c4272507121e35..b712c4d258a6cb045aa96de4a75299714866f5e6 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/v_exec_initval_nolibc.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/v_exec_initval_nolibc.c
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
* the values. To further ensure consistency, this file is compiled without
* libc and without auto-vectorization.
*
- * To be "clean" all values must be either all ones or all zeroes.
+ * To be "clean" all values must be all zeroes.
*/
#define __stringify_1(x...) #x
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
: "=r" (value)); \
if (first) { \
first = 0; \
- } else if (value != prev_value || !(value == 0x00 || value == 0xff)) { \
+ } else if (value != prev_value || value != 0x00) { \
printf("Register " __stringify(register) \
" values not clean! value: %u\n", value); \
exit(-1); \
---
base-commit: 03d38806a902b36bf364cae8de6f1183c0a35a67
change-id: 20250301-fix-v_exec_initval_nolibc-498d976c372d
Best regards,
--
Ignacio Encinas <ignacio@iencinas.com>
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 05:39:28PM +0100, Ignacio Encinas wrote:
> Vector registers are zero initialized by the kernel. Stop accepting
> "all ones" as a clean value.
>
> Note that this was not working as expected given that
> value == 0xff
> can be assumed to be always false by the compiler as value's range is
> [-128, 127]. Both GCC (-Wtype-limits) and clang
> (-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare) warn about this.
This check was included because the "dirty" value is an implementation
detail that I believe is not strongly defined in the ABI. Since linux
does always set this value to zero (currently) we can safely remove this
check.
Reviewed-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>
Tested-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Ignacio Encinas <ignacio@iencinas.com>
> ---
> I tried looking why "all ones" was previously deemed a "clean" value but
> couldn't find any information. It looks like the kernel always
> zero-initializes the vector registers.
>
> If "all ones" is still acceptable for any reason, my intention is to
> spin a v2 changing the types of `value` and `prev_value` to unsigned
> char.
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/v_exec_initval_nolibc.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/v_exec_initval_nolibc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/v_exec_initval_nolibc.c
> index 35c0812e32de0c82a54f84bd52c4272507121e35..b712c4d258a6cb045aa96de4a75299714866f5e6 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/v_exec_initval_nolibc.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/vector/v_exec_initval_nolibc.c
> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
> * the values. To further ensure consistency, this file is compiled without
> * libc and without auto-vectorization.
> *
> - * To be "clean" all values must be either all ones or all zeroes.
> + * To be "clean" all values must be all zeroes.
> */
>
> #define __stringify_1(x...) #x
> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> : "=r" (value)); \
> if (first) { \
> first = 0; \
> - } else if (value != prev_value || !(value == 0x00 || value == 0xff)) { \
> + } else if (value != prev_value || value != 0x00) { \
> printf("Register " __stringify(register) \
> " values not clean! value: %u\n", value); \
> exit(-1); \
>
> ---
> base-commit: 03d38806a902b36bf364cae8de6f1183c0a35a67
> change-id: 20250301-fix-v_exec_initval_nolibc-498d976c372d
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Ignacio Encinas <ignacio@iencinas.com>
>
On 5/3/25 22:49, Charlie Jenkins wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 05:39:28PM +0100, Ignacio Encinas wrote: >> Vector registers are zero initialized by the kernel. Stop accepting >> "all ones" as a clean value. >> >> Note that this was not working as expected given that >> value == 0xff >> can be assumed to be always false by the compiler as value's range is >> [-128, 127]. Both GCC (-Wtype-limits) and clang >> (-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare) warn about this. > > This check was included because the "dirty" value is an implementation > detail that I believe is not strongly defined in the ABI. Since linux > does always set this value to zero (currently) we can safely remove this > check. Thanks for the review. Just after sending the patch I noticed it should also remove some code that becomes useless after this change: _prev_value_ and _first_ variables were only needed because two "clean" values were supported. I'll send a v2 tomorrow. I'm guessing keeping your "Reviewed-by" and "Tested-by" is the appropriate thing to do as the changes are very simple. Let me know if that's not the case. Thanks again!
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 07:31:22AM +0100, Ignacio Encinas Rubio wrote: > > > On 5/3/25 22:49, Charlie Jenkins wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 05:39:28PM +0100, Ignacio Encinas wrote: > >> Vector registers are zero initialized by the kernel. Stop accepting > >> "all ones" as a clean value. > >> > >> Note that this was not working as expected given that > >> value == 0xff > >> can be assumed to be always false by the compiler as value's range is > >> [-128, 127]. Both GCC (-Wtype-limits) and clang > >> (-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare) warn about this. > > > > This check was included because the "dirty" value is an implementation > > detail that I believe is not strongly defined in the ABI. Since linux > > does always set this value to zero (currently) we can safely remove this > > check. > > Thanks for the review. Just after sending the patch I noticed it should > also remove some code that becomes useless after this change: > _prev_value_ and _first_ variables were only needed because two "clean" > values were supported. > > I'll send a v2 tomorrow. I'm guessing keeping your "Reviewed-by" and > "Tested-by" is the appropriate thing to do as the changes are very > simple. Let me know if that's not the case. > > Thanks again! Yes, those changes seem small so you can keep the tags :) - Charlie
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.