I can't actually find anything in the ISA manual that makes Ztso imply
A. In theory the memory ordering is just a different thing that the set
of availiable instructions (ie, Ztso without A would still imply TSO for
loads and stores). It also seems like a configuration that could be
sane to build: without A it's all but impossible to write any meaningful
multi-core code, and TSO is really cheap for a single core.
That said, I think it's kind of reasonable to provide A to users asking
for Ztso. So maybe even if this was a mistake it's the right thing to
do?
gcc/ChangeLog:
* common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc (riscv_implied_info):
Remove {"ztso", "a"}.
---
gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
index f142212f2ed..5f39e5ea462 100644
--- a/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
+++ b/gcc/common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
@@ -71,8 +71,6 @@ static const riscv_implied_info_t riscv_implied_info[] =
{"zks", "zksed"},
{"zks", "zksh"},
- {"ztso", "a"},
-
{"v", "zvl128b"},
{"v", "zve64d"},
--
2.42.1
