[Bug 281179] devel/llvm1[789] removal of arm_bf16.h from _BE_INCS_ARM in Makefile's was incorrect

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=281179

            Bug ID: 281179
           Summary: devel/llvm1[789] removal of arm_bf16.h from
                    _BE_INCS_ARM in Makefile's was incorrect
           Product: Ports & Packages
           Version: Latest
          Hardware: Any
                OS: Any
            Status: New
          Severity: Affects Only Me
          Priority: ---
         Component: Individual Port(s)
          Assignee: gecko@FreeBSD.org
          Reporter: marklmi26-fbsd@yahoo.com
          Assignee: gecko@FreeBSD.org
             Flags: maintainer-feedback?(gecko@FreeBSD.org)

For devel/llvm1[789]:

clang/lib/Basic/Targets/ARM.cpp has:

 if (HasBFloat16) {
   Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_FEATURE_BF16", "1");
   Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_FEATURE_BF16_VECTOR_ARITHMETIC", "1");
   Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_BF16_FORMAT_ALTERNATIVE", "1");
 }

(The above is because target ARM in llvm covers AArch32, even for armv8.)

clang/lib/Basic/Targets/AArch64.cpp has:

 if (HasBFloat16) {
   Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_FEATURE_BF16", "1");
   Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_FEATURE_BF16_VECTOR_ARITHMETIC", "1");
   Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_BF16_FORMAT_ALTERNATIVE", "1");
 }

(The above is because target AArch64 in llvm covers only AArch64, not AARch32.)

The above suggests bf16 support has 32-bit support (even if it is armv8
32-bit). Looking for AArch32 state in:

DDI0487K_a_a-profile_architecture_reference_manual.pdf

it says (via the AArch32 column of a table):

BF16 Supported if FEAT_AA32BF16 is implemented.

So the documentation agrees about there being AARch32 support
possible. (There is also AArch64 support possible.)


Also: I've tested that putting arm_bf16.h back in the llvm18
Makefile to allow part of a poudriere-devel based armv7 www/firefox
build attempt to work instead of getting an error about an
include referencing <arm_bf16.h> not finding the file. So the
deletion lead to part of a port/package build being broken. (The
port has more broken than just that.)

For reference the tested change was:

-_BE_INCS_ARM=          arm_cde.h arm_fp16.h arm_mve.h arm_neon.h arm_sme.h \
+_BE_INCS_ARM=          arm_bf16.h arm_cde.h arm_fp16.h arm_mve.h arm_neon.h
arm_sme.h \

(My Makefile has other personal differences from the official 
Makefile as well.)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.