dtcxzyw wrote: > > > > Personally I don't like to add a privileged extension if it doesn't > > > > introduce new CSRs/instructions. > > > > > > > > > I'd actually put that on the > > > [agenda](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G3ocHm2zE6AYTS2N3_3w2UxFnSEyKkcF57siLWe-NVs/edit?tab=t.0) > > > for today's sync-up call already. We did add the ones that are in the > > > profiles. I could see an argument for supporting everything as people can > > > then have a `-march` string that fully describes the target and don't > > > need to go and sort through which options to drop as they don't affect > > > the compiler. But I also see a counter-argument. I'll summarise anything > > > relevant from the sync-up call discussion here. > > > > > > The conclusion was that nobody present saw a real argument against, feeling > > "why not" and as I mentioned above, it means people can just match the > > `-march` string to their CPU data sheet. Did you have a particular reason > > against adding such extensions? > > Our hardware build generates a configuration file with a full -march string > based on all extensions present in the RTL which we deliver to our customers. > So I would like all extensions to be supported otherwise I have to do it > downstream.
Make sense to me. No strong objection. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111837 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
