StephenFan added a comment. In D93298#2544443 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93298#2544443>, @asb wrote:
> I started reviewing this alongside the specification in > https://github.com/riscv/riscv-zfinx/blob/master/Zfinx_spec.adoc. At the time > of writing, it seems to define "zfinx" but not "zfhinx" and "zfdinx" as seem > to be used in this patch. I think intent is that rv32ifd_zfinx is the > equivalent of "zfdinx" in this patch. Is there a reason to go for different > naming, or a different version of the spec I should be looking at? According to @jrtc27 's review that is "As for Zfinx itself, well, the idea is fine, but I really detest the way it's being done as an extension to F/D/Zfh. Running F code on an FZfh core _does not work_ so it is not an _extension_. Instead it should really be a set of separate extensions to I/E that conflict with F/D/Zfh, i.e. Zfinx, Zdinx and Zfhinx, but apparently asking code that complies with a ratified standard to change itself in order to not break when a new extension is introduced is a-ok in the RISC-V world.". We split the Zfinx into 3 separate extensions which is Zfinx, Zdinx, and Zfhinx. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93298/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93298 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
