wangpc added a comment. In D70401#4655408 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70401#4655408>, @asb wrote:
> First of all, thank you to everyone who has been trying to nudge this forward > and apologies it must have been a frustrating experience. > > I appreciate there are users who want to see this and I don't like that LLVM > doesn't serve them right now - I think it's unfortunate that this need for > the ABI hasn't translated into effort to finalise the ABI definition in the > psABI doc and to at least get it to match what GCC actually implements (spec. > That said, I've not really vocalised that concern clearly up to now - so > that's my bad. > > Matching what GCC does by setting stack alignment to 4 bytes for 2xlen types > seems fine - except this doesn't seem to be documented explicitly in the > current ABI doc (it notes the stack if 4 byte aligned, but you could have > that be the case and still require it to be realigned when storing objects > with a greater alignment requirement, surely?). > > Having different alignment requirements _only_ on the stack does seem ugly, > but I can't think of something off hand that would realistically break with > this. > > @wangpc do you want to update this with the suggested documentation in the > release notes and RISCVUsage on the support being "experimental"? Thanks! I added a note to the RISCVUsage. There won't be `experimental-e` like other experimental extensions as it is already ratified and adds no instruction, it is experimental just because the support is experimental. For ABI part, I don't know if @kito-cheng has some updates/comments. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70401/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70401 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
