search

riscvarchive / riscv-binutils-gdb

RISC-V backports for binutils-gdb. Development is done upstream at the FSF.
GNU General Public License v2.0
148 stars 233 forks source link

Does anyone know the status about zfh support of binutils? #269

Closed zhongjuzhe closed 2 years ago

zhongjuzhe commented 2 years ago

I have seem this someone commit this patch:https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-January/119276.html. But it seems there is no response. For RVV support in GCC, the zfh is also important. Without ZFH support, The FP16 in vector can not be enabled.

kito-cheng commented 2 years ago

Actually we need zvfh for FP16 vector operations: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-v-spec/pull/780 , but zfh and zfhmin still pre-requirement for that I think, I could ping Nelson to review that to make some progress :P

zhongjuzhe commented 2 years ago

Actually we need zvfh for FP16 vector operations: riscv/riscv-v-spec#780 , but zfh and zfhmin still pre-requirement for that I think, I could ping Nelson to review that to make some progress :P

OK. I am planning to split a clean version of GCC to upstream which only has RVV intrinsic support When our company FSF has been approved. Do you think I need to remove fp16 vector as well?

kito-cheng commented 2 years ago

OK. I am planning to split a clean version of GCC to upstream which only has RVV intrinsic support When our company FSF has been approved. Do you think I need to remove fp16 vector as well?

I would suggest that could a separated patch and come after zfh support upstream.

aswaterman commented 2 years ago

@kito-cheng FYI, current thinking is that Zvfh will require Zfhmin, and Zvfhmin will require nothing. But this is just a proposal today; it has not been formally decided. https://github.com/riscv/riscv-v-spec/pull/780/files

kito-cheng commented 2 years ago

Oh, thanks for remind me that, I forgot that since LLVM only implement zvfh for now https://reviews.llvm.org/D121345