> You meant cbo_zero, right?
> CMO was only the task-group name, but the extensions ended up having "cbo"
> in their name…
Yeah, named with an extension name makes more sense, thank you for
pointing that out.
Either __builtin_riscv_cbo_zero or __builtin_riscv_zicboz_cbo_zero is
fine to me since I
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 7:58 AM Kito Cheng wrote:
> I would suggest rename those __builtin_riscv_* to
> __builtin_riscv_cmo_*, that's less confusing, __builtin_riscv_zero
> just seems like it will return a zero value.
>
You meant cbo_zero, right?
CMO was only the task-group name, but the extens
I would suggest rename those __builtin_riscv_* to
__builtin_riscv_cmo_*, that's less confusing, __builtin_riscv_zero
just seems like it will return a zero value.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 10:52 AM wrote:
>
> From: yulong-plct
>
> This commit adds testcases about CMO instructions.
> 7
> 8 gcc/t
