From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ot1-x336.google.com (mail-ot1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::336]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30D393858D37 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2023 00:47:12 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 30D393858D37 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=rivosinc.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rivosinc.com Received: by mail-ot1-x336.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-6b2f0a140b7so1091019a34.3 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:47:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rivosinc-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1688086031; x=1690678031; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=j9NPl3iJVcAObhyRGFDvYIFTiCc9y8vjLbQtSCM1ZYs=; b=y87qq9tuYyG86XC5HJSMA3q3er3i41sR0prPLRyKQTUjdjk7xpFefI891dmu/EXGZ0 dUj/ogILtQcFD5qAp5/BwI6wW+tHMRqNOHsYcaVveoXMMGbDHHW5cVBM5ozw/W2x9j1/ fHbmdV2jqOivm6+9r5KlhLWzN6cPlkzjIoyi9hPXu9c0lsVsD+OKUiUvKZL0KCVUCWdt 9OBWnQtDikXd8nlgzZB9YbZuRfhh8VlLv11HfxhSp6Rk9OJIAD49WvftP+CM1X1dgBg4 z4uVAVg6BCCt701pvItG6NohEfvLS9x6l0KFm+WeEXJ7Jf4lKzewCOIFwYNVoxJMaVOw NOqg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1688086031; x=1690678031; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=j9NPl3iJVcAObhyRGFDvYIFTiCc9y8vjLbQtSCM1ZYs=; b=Wf3wahS6oQ+PVuZs41b7eQ2JG163xc+b2cpXvYzqGD/AsXXpqIHS5uA1XXGcfW5Vpu pSz26LLLxNnQ4YaNiEyfWIMXcgSuAEbVhAShKjaFEI0vIA725YyEwEh7YzefYYpQYg4m LXPcQ9oX4Ks3S/W6AWdhctUXPgax3ISzcbUObGEgGI3VeGEatIcnJmdEMHWiY6pHa8V3 b7S1xc6Qn4vO7jFvu07mkh8ZSucqlLsyjzYR+teup/Y2Wtlt4XvJDveVfxtIAAinBvPc +VZ2+X8C8zN+JqVgfTsiBPy9xVMa4ybV2QUDO5WVYnt52Nh6sm68n6k3NS6pceDX/N2S l8cg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLaU/6ZfQs6DR5vCV0+YEOBIK74LfOoGmi4DgqyRscmDKBC+2K4M OMRj1qKO3goi/6da7vdMnvhNCXZdfTKQYViq3VkaluyWx+ReH7UeKteI9Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4hJvAKl7xNG7ZA/5B/TMADV27rjrBS5htpb64r6MX620drFNpZ7iNoPtTx9Zek9gJ0zk5u/UOG43lerO7DRzQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:420f:b0:1b0:4805:f82 with SMTP id li15-20020a056871420f00b001b048050f82mr1924144oab.35.1688086031485; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:47:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Nelson Chu Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 08:47:00 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5] RISC-V: Add support for the Zfa extension To: Palmer Dabbelt Cc: jeffreyalaw@gmail.com, christoph.muellner@vrull.eu, binutils@sourceware.org, Andrew Waterman , Jim Wilson , philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu, jbeulich@suse.com, Kito Cheng , research_trasio@irq.a4lg.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000041e02205ff4e28a9" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: --00000000000041e02205ff4e28a9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 11:52=E2=80=AFPM Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 08:49:16 PDT (-0700), jeffreyalaw@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On 6/29/23 09:37, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > > > >>>> > So my understanding is that this needs to wait for ratification and > is > >>>> > not blocked by the mentioned PR. > >>>> Is there something special about Zfa that makes it desirable to wait > for > >>>> ratification as opposed to standard practice of gating things as the > >>>> specs get to a Frozen state? > >>> > >>> Not to my knowledge. > >> > >> Waiting for ratification is probably a bad idea, there's really no way > >> to schedule around it. That's a big part of the reason we've just > >> waited for frozen. > > Exactly. ISTM that frozen is the right point to trigger. > Okay, I never figured out the difference between ratified and frozen, since both of them have examples that change the behaviors and syntaxes, even encodings. But anyway, thanks for clarifying the current rule that we should commit when extension is frozen, not ratified. > > And I think enough of it is settled that we can move forward. If RVI > > changes the set of forms allowed, then we can adjust. > Does that mean we don't need to care about compatibility before the ratified extensions? That means we can simply change anything and don't need to maintain the code even if it is frozen. If that is so, then Jim, Kito and I had agreed a very long time ago that we should accept the experiment extension, which hasn't been frozen yet, with the -experiment-extension option that is the same as LLVM. > Presumably someone's actually looked at the code? If not I can look > over it... > I have looked and replied, Kito and Jan should also have looked. The special zfa syntax should be the same as LLVM when I looked. But since that is almost two month ago, it's good if someone helps to review it again to make sure everything is on the line. > I've looked at it earlier. But I'll go over it again. Thanks, Jeff, it would be great to get your approval as well. Thanks Nelson --00000000000041e02205ff4e28a9--