From: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, christoph.muellner@vrull.eu
Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, nelson@rivosinc.com,
Andrew Waterman <andrew@sifive.com>,
Jim Wilson <jim.wilson.gcc@gmail.com>,
philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu, jbeulich@suse.com,
Kito Cheng <kito.cheng@gmail.com>,
research_trasio@irq.a4lg.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5] RISC-V: Add support for the Zfa extension
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 09:49:16 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <df8c42bc-661d-01be-0086-8995441ec473@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mhng-5875e550-00cd-43a4-ae5c-61260a58e435@palmer-ri-x1c9>
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.
>
> IIUC we're just waiting on the assembler syntax to be accepted, it's not
> an ISA problem right now.
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.
>
> It's not all that hard to just add more flavors of assembler syntax
> later, so maybe we just merge this and stop bothering to wait for all
> these other non-ISA specs to resolve?
I'd be more worried about them removing a supported form as that would
result in hand-coded assembly might needing to be adjusted. But I
wouldn't expect there's much hand-coded Zfa code out there.
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-29 15:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-13 13:36 Christoph Muellner
2023-06-29 7:52 ` Christoph Müllner
2023-06-29 8:33 ` Christoph Müllner
2023-06-29 15:07 ` Jeff Law
2023-06-29 15:10 ` Christoph Müllner
2023-06-29 15:37 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2023-06-29 15:49 ` Jeff Law [this message]
2023-06-29 15:51 ` Philipp Tomsich
2023-06-30 13:40 ` Jeff Law
2023-06-30 14:06 ` Jeff Law
2023-06-30 14:08 ` Philipp Tomsich
2023-06-30 14:39 ` Jeff Law
2023-06-29 15:52 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2023-06-29 16:03 ` Jeff Law
2023-06-29 16:12 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2023-06-30 14:07 ` Philipp Tomsich
2023-06-30 0:47 ` Nelson Chu
2023-06-30 6:49 ` Kito Cheng
2023-06-30 13:38 ` Jeff Law
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=df8c42bc-661d-01be-0086-8995441ec473@gmail.com \
--to=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=andrew@sifive.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=christoph.muellner@vrull.eu \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=jim.wilson.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=kito.cheng@gmail.com \
--cc=nelson@rivosinc.com \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu \
--cc=research_trasio@irq.a4lg.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).