These extensions were recently frozen [1]. As per Andrew's post [2] we're meant to ignore these in software, this just adds them to the list of allowed extensions and otherwise ignores them. I added these under SPEC_CLASS_NONE even though the PDF lists them as 20190614 because it seems pointless to add another spec class just to accept two extensions we then ignore.
1: https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/g/isa-dev/c/HZGoqP1eyps/m/GTNKRLJoAQAJ 2: https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/g/sw-dev/c/QKjQhChrq9Q/m/7gqdkctgAgAJ gcc/ChangeLog * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc: Add Zihpm and Zicnttr extensions. --- These deserves documentation, a test case, and a NEWS entry. I didn't write those yet because it's not super clear this is the way we wanted to go, though: just flat out ignoring the ISA feels like the wrong thing to do, but the guidance here is pretty clear. Still feels odd, though. We've also still got an open discussion on how we want to handle -march going forwards that's pretty relevant here, so I figured it'd be best to send this out sooner rather than later as it's sort of related. --- gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc index 4b7f777c103..72981f05ac7 100644 --- a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc +++ b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc @@ -190,6 +190,9 @@ static const struct riscv_ext_version riscv_ext_version_table[] = {"zicbom",ISA_SPEC_CLASS_NONE, 1, 0}, {"zicbop",ISA_SPEC_CLASS_NONE, 1, 0}, + {"zicntr", ISA_SPEC_CLASS_NONE, 2, 0}, + {"zihpm", ISA_SPEC_CLASS_NONE, 2, 0}, + {"zk", ISA_SPEC_CLASS_NONE, 1, 0}, {"zkn", ISA_SPEC_CLASS_NONE, 1, 0}, {"zks", ISA_SPEC_CLASS_NONE, 1, 0}, -- 2.38.1
