[PATCH] D113237: [RISCV] Support I extension version 2.1

achieveartificialintelligence added a comment. > @achieveartificialintelligence Do you know what is the relation between your > patch and D115921 ? This commit doesn't depend on D115921 , but if D115921

[PATCH] D113237: [RISCV] Support I extension version 2.1

khchen added a comment. Herald added subscribers: pcwang-thead, eopXD. https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/g/sw-dev/c/aE1ZeHHCYf4 RISC-V GNU toolchain are going to bump the default ISA spec to 20191213, which means will default with I 2.1, A 2.1, F 2.2 and D 2.2. I think it will be good

[PATCH] D113237: [RISCV] Support I extension version 2.1

kito-cheng added a comment. @asb > Are you saying that there won't be a new ISA manual release (using whatever > naming scheme) that incorporates the ratified versions of bitmanip, crypto, > vector etc? Oh, I guess I using some word too strong there, here should have some newer release in fut

[PATCH] D113237: [RISCV] Support I extension version 2.1

kito-cheng added a comment. @jrtc27 > Outside of the I/F/D special cases, where F/D don't really matter and I2p0 is > just I2p1Zicsr2p0_Zifencei2p0,, I thought the new policy was that ratified > extensions would never be changed, only new extensions published, and thus > version numbers are ba

[PATCH] D113237: [RISCV] Support I extension version 2.1

asb added a comment. @kito-cheng In D113237#3183969 , @kito-cheng wrote: > Here is a long discussion[1] at 2019, at that moment I think we all agree > -misa-spec is a good solution, > > However it's kind of awkward for this scheme is ISA spec changing

[PATCH] D113237: [RISCV] Support I extension version 2.1

achieveartificialintelligence updated this revision to Diff 394174. achieveartificialintelligence added a comment. Support both i2p0 and i2p1 Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D113237/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D113237 Files: clang

[PATCH] D113237: [RISCV] Support I extension version 2.1

jrtc27 added a comment. Outside of the I/F/D special cases, where F/D don't really matter and I2p0 is just I2p1Zicsr2p0_Zifencei2p0,, I thought the new policy was that ratified extensions would never be changed, only new extensions published, and thus version numbers are basically irrelevant ot

[PATCH] D113237: [RISCV] Support I extension version 2.1

kito-cheng added a comment. There is several issue around the default extension version stuffs. - Should we add `-misa-spec=` option to Clang/LLVM? - Behavior for `zifencei` and `zicsr` with `i` 2.0? - How to encode the extension version in LLVM? by attribute or module flags? --- Should we add

[PATCH] D113237: [RISCV] Support I extension version 2.1

asb added a comment. In D113237#3172492 , @achieveartificialintelligence wrote: > In D113237#3124232 , @luismarques > wrote: > >> In D113237#3124188 , @luismarques >> w

[PATCH] D113237: [RISCV] Support I extension version 2.1

achieveartificialintelligence added a comment. In D113237#3124232 , @luismarques wrote: > In D113237#3124188 , @luismarques > wrote: > >> Should we also support `fence.i` with RVI 2.0, without zifencei? > > Here