This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH v2] RISC-V: Change -march parsing.


On Wed, 08 Jan 2020 22:20:36 PST (-0800), Kito Cheng wrote:
Hi Palmer:

Ping, do you mind accept this patch and then we'll send follow up
patch for Zifence and Zicsr?

Sorry, I must have missed the original email


On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 3:21 PM Kito Cheng <kito.cheng@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Maxim:

LGTM, just need Palmer or Jim to approve :)

Hi Palmer:

>> +static bfd_boolean
>> +riscv_ext_x_valid_p (const char *arg)
>> +{
>> +  if (!strcasecmp (arg, "x"))
>> +    return FALSE;
>> +
>> +  return TRUE;
>
> This allows any X extension through but then goes ahead to not provide any
> support for those extensions.  I can understand providing some scaffolding to
> users to turn on their custom extensions, but we should fail quickly on any
> extensions that aren't supported.

We bypass any X extension now, and one concern is we can't testing any
X parsing/combine logic if we reject that.

I still don't think it's a good idea to allow any X extension through.  If you
really want to test X extension handling then we should define some X extension
that's unlikely to have a name conflict and have that extension do something --
maybe "Xbinutils_example_extension", which only has some sort of
"Xbinutils_example_instruction" instruction in it.  Without that then you're
not really testing X extension parsing, as there won't be any behavior change
as a result of passing in the X extension so you can't tell if it's actually
enabled.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]