Re: [PATCH] minimal support for xtheadv

[Kito Cheng <kito.cheng@gmail.com>]

Give a few more thought behind my first LGTM:

I am OK *IF* binutils bits accepted since it's just kind of bypassing
the -march to bintuils to enable those instructions for assembly code.
However the situation seems is little more complicated than my expect
at beginning...:P

Anyway, I still think it's fine to accept that to me *IF* bintuils
part has landed, but only limited to -march support, no further things
for GCC 14 like intrinsic and auto vectorizer stuff for t-head vector
(or vector 0.7).

On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 12:05 AM Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/9/23 01:38, Yixuan Chen wrote:
> > Hi Kito and Christoph,
> >
> > XYenChi (oriachiaun@gmail.com <mailto:oriachiaun@gmail.com>) is my
> > e-mail address too. I didn't notice the git email config have changed,
> > very sorry about that.
> >
> > We want to support other operate system project from our team, so port
> > the XTheadV. If T-Head and VRULL have made great progress, it's pleasure
> > to follow your work. By the way, I have sent the opcode patch to
> > binutils, if you have any concern, please check the patch:
> > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2023-November/130431.html
> > <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2023-November/130431.html>
> >
> > If our team could provide any help, please let us know.
> Given we see multiple organizations with an interest in this work, but
> that the bulk of the work can't be integrated in the short term, y'all
> might consider a shared development branch for coordination.
>
> That gives the two organizations a place to coordinate their work while
> things like the ISA spec and such get solidified.  Presumably the goal
> for the main body of work is not gcc-14, but gcc-15.
>
> I don't want to dictate how coordination happens.  Ultimately it's
> something the relevant developers can decide.
>
> jeff