kito-cheng added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/Disassembler/RISCVDisassembler.cpp:469
+ if (STI.getFeatureBits()[RISCV::FeatureVendorXVentanaCondOps]) {
+ LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Trying Vemtama custom opcode table:\n");
+ Result = decodeInstruction(DecoderTableVentana32, MI, Insn, Address,
this,
----------------
Typo, should be "Trying Ventana..."
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVInstrInfo.td:1785
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+// Vendor extensions
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
----------------
reames wrote:
> How do we want to manage td files for vendor extensions?
>
> I put them inline - which is probably not the right answer. I'm leaning
> towards a vendor specific td file with extensions split out if complexity
> justifies it. So, this patch would add a RISCVInstInfoXVentana.td.
>
> Is that the precedent we want here?
I would suggest put into `RISCVInstInfoXVentana.td` instead of inline here, I
could imagine once this get merged, T-head extensions might try to upstream
too, so put into separated now could prevent they reference this commit and try
to inline their extensions IMO :)
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137350/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137350
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
