Closed pz9115 closed 2 years ago
Shouldn't these be sent to riscv-binutils-experiment branch?
In general, I would prefer that patches go upstream. Branches here in github.com/riscv/riscv-binutils-gdb are becoming a serious liability. But we are still in the process of moving stuff upstream (waiting for gcc-11 branch), and using github for patch reviews is probably more convenient than email for many people. ]
Kito's review of the K gcc patch reminds me, I didn't see testcases. It is generally a good idea to add a gas testcase for new extensions, to verify that we can assemble all of the instructions, and then disassemble them correctly.
We will also need to make sure we didn't accidentally break gdb. We can't do that in riscv-gnu-toolchain because we use different release branches for binutils and gdb. But in the FSF development tree, binutils and gdb development sources are on the same master branch.
FYI, you can press the "Resolve conversation" if you have fixed them. So that the PR will look a little cleaner, thanks.
We had updated with the scalar crypto spec 1.0.0-rc, and merge it with the b-ext spec 1.0.0-rc contants zba_zbb_zbc_zbs for reusing of zbk[bcx]. Sorry for the miss closing of this PR due to branch rename.
This work had been merged into the binutils upstream branch
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git
close the PR.
PLCT had add k-ext support with crypto spec v0.90 with finish all regress testing in binutils part, please check it.