Re: [PATCH v5] RISC-V: Support XTheadVector extension

["Christoph Müllner" <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu>]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 4:18 AM Jun Sha (Joshua)
<cooper.joshua@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
> This patch series presents gcc implementation of the XTheadVector
> extension [1].
>
> [1] https://github.com/T-head-Semi/thead-extension-spec/
>
> For some vector patterns that cannot be avoided, we use
> "!TARGET_XTHEADVECTOR" to disable them in order not to
> generate instructions that xtheadvector does not support,
> causing 10 changes in vector.md.
>
> For the th. prefix issue, we use current_output_insn and
> the ASM_OUTPUT_OPCODE hook instead of directly modifying
> patterns in vector.md.
>
> We have run the GCC test suite and can confirm that there
> are no regressions.
>
> Furthermore, we have run the tests in
> https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/rvv-intrinsic-doc/tree/main/examples,
> and all the tests passed.
>
> Co-authored-by: Jin Ma <jinma@linux.alibaba.com>
> Co-authored-by: Xianmiao Qu <cooper.qu@linux.alibaba.com>
> Co-authored-by: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu>
>
> [PATCH v4] RISC-V: Introduce XTheadVector as a subset of V1.0.0
> [PATCH v5] RISC-V: Adds the prefix "th." for the instructions of XTheadVector
> [PATCH v6] RISC-V: Handle differences between XTheadvector and Vector
> [PATCH v6] RISC-V: Add support for xtheadvector-specific intrinsics
> [PATCH v6] RISC-V: Fix register overlap issue for some xtheadvector instructions
> [PATCH v5] RISC-V: Rewrite some instructions using ASM targethook

All patches of this series got either "LGTM" or "OK":
* https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/643339.html
* https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642798.html
* https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642799.html
* https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642800.html
* https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642801.html
* https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642802.html

As mentioned earlier, I have rebased the patches, retested them locally and
(after ensuring there are no regressions) pushed them.

To all involved people: thank you very much!
A special 'thank you' goes to Juzhe, who did a great job in reviewing
the patches
and providing suggestions to get the code into shape!