> >>> Yeah, I personally want to support RVV intrinsics in GCC13. As RVV > >>> intrinsic is going to release soon next week. > >> > >> OK, that's fine with me -- I was leaning that way, and I think Jeff only > >> had a weak opposition. Are there any more changes required outside the > >> RISC-V backend? Those would be the most controversial and are already > >> late, but if it's only backend stuff at this point then I'm OK taking > >> the risk for a bit longer. > >> > >> Jeff? > > It's not ideal, but I can live with the bits going into gcc-13 as long > > as they don't bleed out of the RISC-V port. > > Ya, that's kind of what happens every release though (and not just in > GCC, it's that way for everything). Maybe for gcc-14 we can commit to > taking the stage1/stage3 split seriously in RISC-V land? > > It's early enough that nobody should be surprised, and even if we don't > need to do it as per the GCC rules we're going to go crazy if we keep > letting things go until the last minute like this. I think the only > real fallout we've had so far was the B stuff in binutils, but we've > been exceedingly close to broken releases way too many times and it's > going to bite us at some point.
I hope we can follow GCC development rule in GCC 14 too, we don't have enough engineer resource and community in RISC-V GNU land before, but now we have more people join the development work and review work, so I believe that could be improved next year. Hi Jeff: Thanksgiving holiday is over, but I guess it's never too late to say thanks. Thank you for joining the RISC-V world and helping review lots of patches :)
