wangpc-pp wrote: > > I am kind of confused now. So the situation here is that RVIOS has already > > implemented these vendor extensions in cores and RVIOS is also trying to > > make these extensions official RVI standards, right? > > You're confusing two things. We (Rivos) have defined a set of custom vendor > extensions - this patch is the first in that sub-series. We are _also and > separately_ proposing a subset of instructions for consideration at RVI for > eventual standardization. As an example of how these are different, see > XRivosVisni in the linked repo. That's a vendor extension which relates to > gaps identified in RVV, but for which we're not currently proposing an > extension at RVI.
Thanks, I'd like to know if these vendor extensions have been implemented in some type-out-ed cores. I have this question because I saw that these vendor extensions are of version 0.1. If they are going to be changeable (and experimental), then why are we supporting XRivosVizip extension in a hurry since XRivosVizip and Zvzip are overlapped. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127694 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
