https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116035
--- Comment #5 from Patrick O'Neill <patrick at rivosinc dot com> --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #3) > I assume this is a '[14/15 regression]', or does < 14 not support these > instructions and you're using it just to say what's affected? If the latter, > it's counter to the normal conventions and maybe better to use "Known to > work" / "Known to fail". > > (This is a general question as I've noticed this with a lot of riscv bugs > and I'm not sure.) Typically I use [14/15 Regression] if I'm sure it's a regression (ex. the feature exists in prior versions and worked there). [14/15] is for cases like this where the isa extension wasn't implemented before so it's not technically a regression. I like to err on the side of [14/15] if I'm not sure if it's a regression. If it's preferred I can remove the [14/15 <Regression>] from my titles and start exclusively using known to work/known to fail or just use known to work/fail in addition to the title.
