jrtc27 added a comment.
I'm unconvinced about landing something like this until there's an actual use
case in the tree. How do we know this will actually work the way we want it to
if there's nothing proving it? It's still unclear to me how exactly this is
going to be represented in the target features, but also with RISC-V extensions
not being changed once ratified any more (changes mean new extensions entirely,
not new versions) I don't know whether this is actually needed or we can just
deal with the couple of existing cases more simply.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Support/RISCVISAInfo.cpp:48
{"v", RISCVExtensionVersion{0, 10}},
+ //{"v", RISCVExtensionVersion{0, 7}},
{"zba", RISCVExtensionVersion{1, 0}},
----------------
Don't do this
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D115921/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D115921
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
