kito-cheng added a comment. @jrtc27
> Outside of the I/F/D special cases, where F/D don't really matter and I2p0 is > just I2p1Zicsr2p0_Zifencei2p0,, I thought the new policy was that ratified > extensions would never be changed, only new extensions published, and thus > version numbers are basically irrelevant other than to distinguish ratified > from pre-ratified? The `I2p0` and `I2p1` is the most problem now, and new policy seems intend to add new ratified ext. rather than extend or change, but I guess I just be more conservative here, since the `I` isn't expect to be changed before it change. And we are trying to support *real* multi-version on clang/LLVM (e.g. try to support v 0.10 and 1.0 and emit right version on ELF attr.), so we are headache on this issue for a while, but this might not issue to upstream LLVM I guess. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D113237/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D113237 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
