On Tue, 08 Oct 2024 16:43:13 PDT (-0700), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/7/24 11:33 PM, Tsung Chun Lin wrote:That M implies Zmmul. gcc/ChangeLog: * common/config/riscv/riscv-common.cc: M implies Zmmul.THanks. I've pushed this to the trunk. jeff ps. Quite a discussion on this topic in the zmmul public discussion from a couple years ago. But it looks like the consensus was that M should imply Zmmul.
Wacky timing: I just sat down to try and reply to the "how do C and Zca relate" thread in binutils, only to find this one instead. I think we've now got the same issue that Jan is pointing out in binutils: basically +M and -M aren't inverses any more (it would leave on Zmmul). Not 100% sure there.
FWIW that M/Zmmul thread basically made me give up so I don't really care that much either way, IMO anyone depending on these fine-grained extension things is in for a pile of brokenness. So as long as we document what we do it's fine with me.
Here's the binutils thread: https://inbox.sourceware.org/binutils/ff5b9acf-6bd6-4cac-a7e5-9ec96ef9c...@suse.com/
