asb added a comment. In D93298#2544459 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93298#2544459>, @StephenFan wrote:
> 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. Ah I see. I interpreted jrtc27's comment as a general gripe about the spec (which perhaps could be relayed to those working on the zfinx spec) rather as a direction for changing this patch in particular. Anyway, it's a detail that shouldn't affect an initial review. Thanks for clarifying. 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
