On 6/25/24 4:06 PM, Patrick O'Neill wrote:
From: Gianluca Guida
The Zabha extension adds support for subword Zaamo ops.
Extension: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-zabha.git
Ratification: https://jira.riscv.org/browse/RVS-1685
gcc/ChangeLog:
* common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
> I think your interpretation of "depends on" is reasonable, but it's not the
> way we've handled it for other extension dependencies. For the others we're
> treating "depends on" the way this code does, ie enabling the dependant
> extensions implicitly. IIRC that's how the RISC-V specs want it t
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 08:50:57 PDT (-0700), Andrea Parri wrote:
Tested using amo.exp with rv64gc_zalrsc, rv64id_zaamo, rv64id_zalrsc,
rv64id_zabha (using tip-of-tree qemu w/ zabha patches [2] applied for
execution tests).
My interpretation of the Zabha specification, in particular of "The Zabha
e
> > My interpretation of the Zabha specification, in particular of "The Zabha
> > extension depends upon the Zaamo standard extension", is that rv64id_zabha
> > should result in a dependency violation (some compiler warning).
> >
> > The changes at stake seem instead to make the Zabha extension "s
On 6/26/24 08:50, Andrea Parri wrote:
Tested using amo.exp with rv64gc_zalrsc, rv64id_zaamo, rv64id_zalrsc,
rv64id_zabha (using tip-of-tree qemu w/ zabha patches [2] applied for
execution tests).
My interpretation of the Zabha specification, in particular of "The Zabha
extension depends upon th
> Tested using amo.exp with rv64gc_zalrsc, rv64id_zaamo, rv64id_zalrsc,
> rv64id_zabha (using tip-of-tree qemu w/ zabha patches [2] applied for
> execution tests).
My interpretation of the Zabha specification, in particular of "The Zabha
extension depends upon the Zaamo standard extension", is tha
From: Gianluca Guida
The Zabha extension adds support for subword Zaamo ops.
Extension: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-zabha.git
Ratification: https://jira.riscv.org/browse/RVS-1685
gcc/ChangeLog:
* common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc
(riscv_subset_list::to_string): Skip zabha
