[PATCH] RISC-V: Update Zihintpause extension version

[PATCH] RISC-V: Update Zihintpause extension version

[Tsukasa OI]

Because ratified Zihintpause extension has a version number of 2.0
(not 1.0), we should update the number.

bfd/ChangeLog:

	* elfxx-riscv.c (riscv_supported_std_z_ext): Update version
	number of Zihintpause extension.
---
 bfd/elfxx-riscv.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
index 9f52bb545ac..29755a6cb0a 100644
--- a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
+++ b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
@@ -1183,7 +1183,7 @@ static struct riscv_supported_ext riscv_supported_std_z_ext[] =
   {"zicsr",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20190608,	2, 0,  0 },
   {"zifencei",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20191213,	2, 0,  0 },
   {"zifencei",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20190608,	2, 0,  0 },
-  {"zihintpause",	ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,		1, 0,  0 },
+  {"zihintpause",	ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,		2, 0,  0 },
   {"zfinx",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,		1, 0,  0 },
   {"zdinx",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,		1, 0,  0 },
   {"zqinx",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,		1, 0,  0 },

base-commit: 35b5767cf47169d11aa059fce0ed5b0fc213045d
-- 
2.32.0

Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Update Zihintpause extension version

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 03:37:41 PST (-0800), binutils@sourceware.org wrote:
> Because ratified Zihintpause extension has a version number of 2.0
> (not 1.0), we should update the number.

The ISA manual also says it's ratified so having it in the draft set is 
kind of odd, but I'm not sure which spec version it should be included 
in.  The commits saying it was ratified are in August 2021, but I can't 
find a spec version that's listed as ratified and contains the new 2.0 
(there was also an earlier 2.0, from before the 1.0).

Not sure if this matters, though.  Looks like the only non-commentary 
differents are: from the original 2.0 to 1.0, the text "No architectural 
state is changed." was added; and from 1.0 to 2.0 the text "{\em fm}=0, 
{\em rd}={\tt x0}, and {\em rs1}={\tt x0}" was added (to the encoding 
section).  The second one isn't substantive, and while the first one 
reads like a change to me IIRC we've been through that before and I just 
have the definition of architectural state change wrong.

>
> bfd/ChangeLog:
>
> 	* elfxx-riscv.c (riscv_supported_std_z_ext): Update version
> 	number of Zihintpause extension.
> ---
>  bfd/elfxx-riscv.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
> index 9f52bb545ac..29755a6cb0a 100644
> --- a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
> +++ b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
> @@ -1183,7 +1183,7 @@ static struct riscv_supported_ext riscv_supported_std_z_ext[] =
>    {"zicsr",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20190608,	2, 0,  0 },
>    {"zifencei",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20191213,	2, 0,  0 },
>    {"zifencei",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20190608,	2, 0,  0 },
> -  {"zihintpause",	ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,		1, 0,  0 },
> +  {"zihintpause",	ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,		2, 0,  0 },
>    {"zfinx",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,		1, 0,  0 },
>    {"zdinx",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,		1, 0,  0 },
>    {"zqinx",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,		1, 0,  0 },
>
> base-commit: 35b5767cf47169d11aa059fce0ed5b0fc213045d

Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Update Zihintpause extension version

[Andrew Waterman]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:45 AM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 03:37:41 PST (-0800), binutils@sourceware.org wrote:
> > Because ratified Zihintpause extension has a version number of 2.0
> > (not 1.0), we should update the number.
>
> The ISA manual also says it's ratified so having it in the draft set is
> kind of odd, but I'm not sure which spec version it should be included
> in.  The commits saying it was ratified are in August 2021, but I can't
> find a spec version that's listed as ratified and contains the new 2.0
> (there was also an earlier 2.0, from before the 1.0).
>
> Not sure if this matters, though.  Looks like the only non-commentary
> differents are: from the original 2.0 to 1.0, the text "No architectural
> state is changed." was added; and from 1.0 to 2.0 the text "{\em fm}=0,
> {\em rd}={\tt x0}, and {\em rs1}={\tt x0}" was added (to the encoding
> section).  The second one isn't substantive, and while the first one
> reads like a change to me IIRC we've been through that before and I just
> have the definition of architectural state change wrong.

The first one isn't substantive, either, because of the definition of
HINT.  It's just a clarification.

>
> >
> > bfd/ChangeLog:
> >
> >       * elfxx-riscv.c (riscv_supported_std_z_ext): Update version
> >       number of Zihintpause extension.
> > ---
> >  bfd/elfxx-riscv.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
> > index 9f52bb545ac..29755a6cb0a 100644
> > --- a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
> > +++ b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
> > @@ -1183,7 +1183,7 @@ static struct riscv_supported_ext riscv_supported_std_z_ext[] =
> >    {"zicsr",          ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20190608,        2, 0,  0 },
> >    {"zifencei",               ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20191213,        2, 0,  0 },
> >    {"zifencei",               ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20190608,        2, 0,  0 },
> > -  {"zihintpause",    ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           1, 0,  0 },
> > +  {"zihintpause",    ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           2, 0,  0 },
> >    {"zfinx",          ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           1, 0,  0 },
> >    {"zdinx",          ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           1, 0,  0 },
> >    {"zqinx",          ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           1, 0,  0 },
> >
> > base-commit: 35b5767cf47169d11aa059fce0ed5b0fc213045d

Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Update Zihintpause extension version

[Tsukasa OI]

Sorry for no background on the first submission.  Probably I will have
to create cover letters even if the patch is very small.

Yup, old 2.0 -> new 1.0 -> new 2.0.

I list some RISC-V ISA Manual commits with author/committer dates:

[Old 2.0 (initially proposed)]
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commit/ea9410a6a5ea2b7cabfbef1ed0bf3507bb784c36 (2019-08-26 / 2020-10-17)
[New 1.0 (version number changed)]
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commit/773a6c4cc9db7585d42ec732d5db24f930d1157a (2020-10-09 / 2020-10-17)
[New 1.0 (Ratified!?)]
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commit/d8ab5c78c207d7138684fc92cc8f34c463975620 (2021-08-02 / 2021-08-02)
[New 2.0 (Ratified version corrected in a day)]
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commit/7a58119dad5bd43e2171a26b56ef60f9591a1c9c (2021-08-02 / 2021-08-02)

Latest draft still says that ratified version is "2.0":
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/releases/tag/draft-20220125-23a1255

On 2022/02/01 11:20, Andrew Waterman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:45 AM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 03:37:41 PST (-0800), binutils@sourceware.org wrote:
>>> Because ratified Zihintpause extension has a version number of 2.0
>>> (not 1.0), we should update the number.
>>
>> The ISA manual also says it's ratified so having it in the draft set is
>> kind of odd, but I'm not sure which spec version it should be included
>> in.  The commits saying it was ratified are in August 2021, but I can't
>> find a spec version that's listed as ratified and contains the new 2.0
>> (there was also an earlier 2.0, from before the 1.0).
>>
>> Not sure if this matters, though.  Looks like the only non-commentary
>> differents are: from the original 2.0 to 1.0, the text "No architectural
>> state is changed." was added; and from 1.0 to 2.0 the text "{\em fm}=0,
>> {\em rd}={\tt x0}, and {\em rs1}={\tt x0}" was added (to the encoding
>> section).  The second one isn't substantive, and while the first one
>> reads like a change to me IIRC we've been through that before and I just
>> have the definition of architectural state change wrong.
> 
> The first one isn't substantive, either, because of the definition of
> HINT.  It's just a clarification.

Although that version change is not substantive, this version
number is copied to RISC-V attributes section
(e.g. with -march=rv32gc_zihintpause) so I thought it would be better to
be an actual ratified version.

(Before the patch)
Contents of section .riscv.attributes:
 0000 415a0000 00726973 63760001 50000000  AZ...riscv..P...
 0010 05727633 32693270 315f6d32 70305f61  .rv32i2p1_m2p0_a
 0020 3270315f 66327032 5f643270 325f6332  2p1_f2p2_d2p2_c2
 0030 70305f7a 69637372 3270305f 7a696665  p0_zicsr2p0_zife
 0040 6e636569 3270305f 7a696869 6e747061  ncei2p0_zihintpa
 0050 75736531 70300008 010a0b             use1p0.....     

(After the patch [offset 0x53 is changed])
Contents of section .riscv.attributes:
 0000 415a0000 00726973 63760001 50000000  AZ...riscv..P...
 0010 05727633 32693270 315f6d32 70305f61  .rv32i2p1_m2p0_a
 0020 3270315f 66327032 5f643270 325f6332  2p1_f2p2_d2p2_c2
 0030 70305f7a 69637372 3270305f 7a696665  p0_zicsr2p0_zife
 0040 6e636569 3270305f 7a696869 6e747061  ncei2p0_zihintpa
 0050 75736532 70300008 010a0b             use2p0.....     

Thanks,
Tsukasa

> 
>>
>>>
>>> bfd/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>>       * elfxx-riscv.c (riscv_supported_std_z_ext): Update version
>>>       number of Zihintpause extension.
>>> ---
>>>  bfd/elfxx-riscv.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
>>> index 9f52bb545ac..29755a6cb0a 100644
>>> --- a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
>>> +++ b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
>>> @@ -1183,7 +1183,7 @@ static struct riscv_supported_ext riscv_supported_std_z_ext[] =
>>>    {"zicsr",          ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20190608,        2, 0,  0 },
>>>    {"zifencei",               ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20191213,        2, 0,  0 },
>>>    {"zifencei",               ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20190608,        2, 0,  0 },
>>> -  {"zihintpause",    ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           1, 0,  0 },
>>> +  {"zihintpause",    ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           2, 0,  0 },
>>>    {"zfinx",          ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           1, 0,  0 },
>>>    {"zdinx",          ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           1, 0,  0 },
>>>    {"zqinx",          ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           1, 0,  0 },
>>>
>>> base-commit: 35b5767cf47169d11aa059fce0ed5b0fc213045d
> 

Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Update Zihintpause extension version

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 05:46:56 PST (-0800), research_trasio@irq.a4lg.com wrote:
> Sorry for no background on the first submission.  Probably I will have
> to create cover letters even if the patch is very small.
>
> Yup, old 2.0 -> new 1.0 -> new 2.0.
>
> I list some RISC-V ISA Manual commits with author/committer dates:
>
> [Old 2.0 (initially proposed)]
> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commit/ea9410a6a5ea2b7cabfbef1ed0bf3507bb784c36 (2019-08-26 / 2020-10-17)
> [New 1.0 (version number changed)]
> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commit/773a6c4cc9db7585d42ec732d5db24f930d1157a (2020-10-09 / 2020-10-17)
> [New 1.0 (Ratified!?)]
> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commit/d8ab5c78c207d7138684fc92cc8f34c463975620 (2021-08-02 / 2021-08-02)
> [New 2.0 (Ratified version corrected in a day)]
> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commit/7a58119dad5bd43e2171a26b56ef60f9591a1c9c (2021-08-02 / 2021-08-02)
>
> Latest draft still says that ratified version is "2.0":
> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/releases/tag/draft-20220125-23a1255
>
> On 2022/02/01 11:20, Andrew Waterman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:45 AM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 03:37:41 PST (-0800), binutils@sourceware.org wrote:
>>>> Because ratified Zihintpause extension has a version number of 2.0
>>>> (not 1.0), we should update the number.
>>>
>>> The ISA manual also says it's ratified so having it in the draft set is
>>> kind of odd, but I'm not sure which spec version it should be included
>>> in.  The commits saying it was ratified are in August 2021, but I can't
>>> find a spec version that's listed as ratified and contains the new 2.0
>>> (there was also an earlier 2.0, from before the 1.0).
>>>
>>> Not sure if this matters, though.  Looks like the only non-commentary
>>> differents are: from the original 2.0 to 1.0, the text "No architectural
>>> state is changed." was added; and from 1.0 to 2.0 the text "{\em fm}=0,
>>> {\em rd}={\tt x0}, and {\em rs1}={\tt x0}" was added (to the encoding
>>> section).  The second one isn't substantive, and while the first one
>>> reads like a change to me IIRC we've been through that before and I just
>>> have the definition of architectural state change wrong.
>>
>> The first one isn't substantive, either, because of the definition of
>> HINT.  It's just a clarification.
>
> Although that version change is not substantive, this version

OK, sorry, I guess I'm just confused here.  No big deal, though -- if 
they're the same that's all that matters, I don't really care about the 
why part.

> number is copied to RISC-V attributes section
> (e.g. with -march=rv32gc_zihintpause) so I thought it would be better to
> be an actual ratified version.
>
> (Before the patch)
> Contents of section .riscv.attributes:
>  0000 415a0000 00726973 63760001 50000000  AZ...riscv..P...
>  0010 05727633 32693270 315f6d32 70305f61  .rv32i2p1_m2p0_a
>  0020 3270315f 66327032 5f643270 325f6332  2p1_f2p2_d2p2_c2
>  0030 70305f7a 69637372 3270305f 7a696665  p0_zicsr2p0_zife
>  0040 6e636569 3270305f 7a696869 6e747061  ncei2p0_zihintpa
>  0050 75736531 70300008 010a0b             use1p0.....
>
> (After the patch [offset 0x53 is changed])
> Contents of section .riscv.attributes:
>  0000 415a0000 00726973 63760001 50000000  AZ...riscv..P...
>  0010 05727633 32693270 315f6d32 70305f61  .rv32i2p1_m2p0_a
>  0020 3270315f 66327032 5f643270 325f6332  2p1_f2p2_d2p2_c2
>  0030 70305f7a 69637372 3270305f 7a696665  p0_zicsr2p0_zife
>  0040 6e636569 3270305f 7a696869 6e747061  ncei2p0_zihintpa
>  0050 75736532 70300008 010a0b             use2p0.....

Works for me, and given that there's no difference between the three I 
don't see any reason to worry about the spec versioning.

Looks like the copyright assignment might still be in limbo (I left my 
FSF keys at home, so I can't check right now), we can probably call this 
one trivial but I don't see any particular rush and given that a lot of 
your other patch sets are defiantly not trivial that has to get sorted 
out anyway.

Thanks!

>
> Thanks,
> Tsukasa
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> bfd/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>>       * elfxx-riscv.c (riscv_supported_std_z_ext): Update version
>>>>       number of Zihintpause extension.
>>>> ---
>>>>  bfd/elfxx-riscv.c | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
>>>> index 9f52bb545ac..29755a6cb0a 100644
>>>> --- a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
>>>> +++ b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
>>>> @@ -1183,7 +1183,7 @@ static struct riscv_supported_ext riscv_supported_std_z_ext[] =
>>>>    {"zicsr",          ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20190608,        2, 0,  0 },
>>>>    {"zifencei",               ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20191213,        2, 0,  0 },
>>>>    {"zifencei",               ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20190608,        2, 0,  0 },
>>>> -  {"zihintpause",    ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           1, 0,  0 },
>>>> +  {"zihintpause",    ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           2, 0,  0 },
>>>>    {"zfinx",          ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           1, 0,  0 },
>>>>    {"zdinx",          ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           1, 0,  0 },
>>>>    {"zqinx",          ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           1, 0,  0 },
>>>>
>>>> base-commit: 35b5767cf47169d11aa059fce0ed5b0fc213045d
>>

Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Update Zihintpause extension version

[Tsukasa OI]

On 2022/02/02 9:12, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 05:46:56 PST (-0800), research_trasio@irq.a4lg.com wrote:
>> Sorry for no background on the first submission.  Probably I will have
>> to create cover letters even if the patch is very small.
>>
>> Yup, old 2.0 -> new 1.0 -> new 2.0.
>>
>> I list some RISC-V ISA Manual commits with author/committer dates:
>>
>> [Old 2.0 (initially proposed)]
>> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commit/ea9410a6a5ea2b7cabfbef1ed0bf3507bb784c36 (2019-08-26 / 2020-10-17)
>> [New 1.0 (version number changed)]
>> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commit/773a6c4cc9db7585d42ec732d5db24f930d1157a (2020-10-09 / 2020-10-17)
>> [New 1.0 (Ratified!?)]
>> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commit/d8ab5c78c207d7138684fc92cc8f34c463975620 (2021-08-02 / 2021-08-02)
>> [New 2.0 (Ratified version corrected in a day)]
>> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commit/7a58119dad5bd43e2171a26b56ef60f9591a1c9c (2021-08-02 / 2021-08-02)
>>
>> Latest draft still says that ratified version is "2.0":
>> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/releases/tag/draft-20220125-23a1255
>>
>> On 2022/02/01 11:20, Andrew Waterman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:45 AM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 03:37:41 PST (-0800), binutils@sourceware.org wrote:
>>>>> Because ratified Zihintpause extension has a version number of 2.0
>>>>> (not 1.0), we should update the number.
>>>>
>>>> The ISA manual also says it's ratified so having it in the draft set is
>>>> kind of odd, but I'm not sure which spec version it should be included
>>>> in.  The commits saying it was ratified are in August 2021, but I can't
>>>> find a spec version that's listed as ratified and contains the new 2.0
>>>> (there was also an earlier 2.0, from before the 1.0).
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if this matters, though.  Looks like the only non-commentary
>>>> differents are: from the original 2.0 to 1.0, the text "No architectural
>>>> state is changed." was added; and from 1.0 to 2.0 the text "{\em fm}=0,
>>>> {\em rd}={\tt x0}, and {\em rs1}={\tt x0}" was added (to the encoding
>>>> section).  The second one isn't substantive, and while the first one
>>>> reads like a change to me IIRC we've been through that before and I just
>>>> have the definition of architectural state change wrong.
>>>
>>> The first one isn't substantive, either, because of the definition of
>>> HINT.  It's just a clarification.
>>
>> Although that version change is not substantive, this version
> 
> OK, sorry, I guess I'm just confused here.  No big deal, though -- if they're the same that's all that matters, I don't really care about the why part.
> 
>> number is copied to RISC-V attributes section
>> (e.g. with -march=rv32gc_zihintpause) so I thought it would be better to
>> be an actual ratified version.
>>
>> (Before the patch)
>> Contents of section .riscv.attributes:
>>  0000 415a0000 00726973 63760001 50000000  AZ...riscv..P...
>>  0010 05727633 32693270 315f6d32 70305f61  .rv32i2p1_m2p0_a
>>  0020 3270315f 66327032 5f643270 325f6332  2p1_f2p2_d2p2_c2
>>  0030 70305f7a 69637372 3270305f 7a696665  p0_zicsr2p0_zife
>>  0040 6e636569 3270305f 7a696869 6e747061  ncei2p0_zihintpa
>>  0050 75736531 70300008 010a0b             use1p0.....
>>
>> (After the patch [offset 0x53 is changed])
>> Contents of section .riscv.attributes:
>>  0000 415a0000 00726973 63760001 50000000  AZ...riscv..P...
>>  0010 05727633 32693270 315f6d32 70305f61  .rv32i2p1_m2p0_a
>>  0020 3270315f 66327032 5f643270 325f6332  2p1_f2p2_d2p2_c2
>>  0030 70305f7a 69637372 3270305f 7a696665  p0_zicsr2p0_zife
>>  0040 6e636569 3270305f 7a696869 6e747061  ncei2p0_zihintpa
>>  0050 75736532 70300008 010a0b             use2p0.....
> 
> Works for me, and given that there's no difference between the three I don't see any reason to worry about the spec versioning.
> 
> Looks like the copyright assignment might still be in limbo (I left my FSF keys at home, so I can't check right now), we can probably call this one trivial but I don't see any particular rush and given that a lot of your other patch sets are defiantly not trivial that has to get sorted out anyway.

As I mentioned in my latest (and big) Zfinx patch set (Part 1), my
copyright assignment to FSF is completed.
<https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-February/119570.html>

I didn't detailed it in the e-mail above but... it's completed in
2022-01-20 [gnu.org #1788718].

I agree that we don't have to rush about it.  As long as patches are
reviewed properly, that's fine.

Still, I hope that my Zfinx patchsets are sorted out in February so that
we can implement Zfh/Zfhmin on the tree with my Zfinx patchsets
either accepted, rejected or postponed.

Thanks,
Tsukasa

> 
> Thanks!
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tsukasa
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> bfd/ChangeLog:
>>>>>
>>>>>       * elfxx-riscv.c (riscv_supported_std_z_ext): Update version
>>>>>       number of Zihintpause extension.
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  bfd/elfxx-riscv.c | 2 +-
>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
>>>>> index 9f52bb545ac..29755a6cb0a 100644
>>>>> --- a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
>>>>> +++ b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
>>>>> @@ -1183,7 +1183,7 @@ static struct riscv_supported_ext riscv_supported_std_z_ext[] =
>>>>>    {"zicsr",          ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20190608,        2, 0,  0 },
>>>>>    {"zifencei",               ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20191213,        2, 0,  0 },
>>>>>    {"zifencei",               ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20190608,        2, 0,  0 },
>>>>> -  {"zihintpause",    ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           1, 0,  0 },
>>>>> +  {"zihintpause",    ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           2, 0,  0 },
>>>>>    {"zfinx",          ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           1, 0,  0 },
>>>>>    {"zdinx",          ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           1, 0,  0 },
>>>>>    {"zqinx",          ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,           1, 0,  0 },
>>>>>
>>>>> base-commit: 35b5767cf47169d11aa059fce0ed5b0fc213045d
>>>
> 

Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Update Zihintpause extension version

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 05:46:56 PST (-0800), research_trasio@irq.a4lg.com wrote:

> Looks like the copyright assignment might still be in limbo (I left my FSF
> keys at home, so I can't check right now), we can probably call this one
> trivial but I don't see any particular rush and given that a lot of your other
> patch sets are defiantly not trivial that has to get sorted out anyway.

FWIW, in a freshly retrieved copyright.list, I see an entry
dated 2022-01-19 for BINUTILS Tsukasa OI "Assigns past and
future changes".

HTH.  Happy hacking.

brgds, H-P

[PING][PATCH] RISC-V: Update Zihintpause extension version

[Tsukasa OI]

On 2022/01/30 20:37, Tsukasa OI wrote:
> Because ratified Zihintpause extension has a version number of 2.0
> (not 1.0), we should update the number.
> 
> bfd/ChangeLog:
> 
> 	* elfxx-riscv.c (riscv_supported_std_z_ext): Update version
> 	number of Zihintpause extension.
> ---
>  bfd/elfxx-riscv.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
> index 9f52bb545ac..29755a6cb0a 100644
> --- a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
> +++ b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
> @@ -1183,7 +1183,7 @@ static struct riscv_supported_ext riscv_supported_std_z_ext[] =
>    {"zicsr",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20190608,	2, 0,  0 },
>    {"zifencei",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20191213,	2, 0,  0 },
>    {"zifencei",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20190608,	2, 0,  0 },
> -  {"zihintpause",	ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,		1, 0,  0 },
> +  {"zihintpause",	ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,		2, 0,  0 },
>    {"zfinx",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,		1, 0,  0 },
>    {"zdinx",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,		1, 0,  0 },
>    {"zqinx",		ISA_SPEC_CLASS_DRAFT,		1, 0,  0 },
> 
> base-commit: 35b5767cf47169d11aa059fce0ed5b0fc213045d

Let me allow to send a ping.

Original:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-January/119545.html
Some discussion:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-February/119588.html

I completely understand that my other fixes (except this and RV32Q) are
relatively large and needs some time to review.

I think this (and RV32Q patch) are completely safe to merge.

Thanks,
Tsukasa