jrtc27 added a comment. In D93298#2544775 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93298#2544775>, @asb wrote:
> 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. Well, it was "I'm uneasy about accepting a patch adding an extension that is fundamentally flawed in its current form" (unlike some of the others where they're subject to change but don't _break_ anything). 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
