asb added a comment. This extension doesn't appear to be ratified but you've listed it in the table of ratified extensions and treated it as a ratified extension in RISCVISAInfo.cpp. I know that given we don't do checking for CSR names the distinction feels a bit academic, but I don't think this is the best approach. For CSR only extensions like this my feeling is we should review a patch like this ahead of ratification, but not land until it's actually ratified. One of the main goals (from my perspective at least) for allowing not-yet-ratified extensions upstream was to allow collaboration on the implementation, but given the simplicity of CSR-only extensions I'm not sure the cost/benefit makes sense vs just waiting for ratification when we can be sure the assigned numbers won't change. I'd be open to counter arguments though.
Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148066/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148066 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
