[PATCH v4 1/3] RISC-V: Minimal support of scalar crypto extension

[Jan Beulich]

On 21.02.2022 15:16, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 15:14, <jiawei@iscas.ac.cn> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > -----原始邮件-----
>> > 发件人: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@suse.com>
>> > 发送时间: 2022-02-21 21:24:11 (星期一)
>> > 收件人: jiawei <jiawei@iscas.ac.cn>
>> > 抄送: kito.cheng@sifive.com, nelson.chu@sifive.com, jimw@sifive.com, philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu, mjos@pqshield.com, ben.marshall@pqshield.com, cmuellner@ventanamicro.com, palmer@dabbelt.com, andrew@sifive.com, lazyparser@gmail.com, siyu@isrc.iscas.ac.cn, schwab@linux-m68k.org, binutils@sourceware.org
>> > 主题: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] RISC-V: Minimal support of scalar crypto extension
>> >
>> > On 15.11.2021 04:03, jiawei wrote:
>> > > Minimal support of scalar crypto extension, add "k" in riscv_supported_std_ext[] to make the   order check right with "zk" behind "zb". "zbk*" is sub-extension for k-ext, so it added behind "zbs" in riscv_supported_std_z_ext[].
>> > > ---
>> > >  bfd/elfxx-riscv.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > >  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
>> > > index 3ffbaad66dd..152fbe3d160 100644
>> > > --- a/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
>> > > +++ b/bfd/elfxx-riscv.c
>> > > @@ -1075,6 +1075,20 @@ static struct riscv_implicit_subset riscv_implicit_subsets[] =
>> > >    {"q", "d",         check_implicit_always},
>> > >    {"d", "f",         check_implicit_always},
>> > >    {"f", "zicsr",     check_implicit_always},
>> > > +  {"zk", "zkn",      check_implicit_always},
>> > > +  {"zk", "zkr",      check_implicit_always},
>> > > +  {"zk", "zkt",      check_implicit_always},
>> > > +  {"zkn", "zbkb",    check_implicit_always},
>> > > +  {"zkn", "zbkc",    check_implicit_always},
>> > > +  {"zkn", "zbkx",    check_implicit_always},
>> > > +  {"zkn", "zkne",    check_implicit_always},
>> > > +  {"zkn", "zknd",    check_implicit_always},
>> > > +  {"zkn", "zknh",    check_implicit_always},
>> > > +  {"zks", "zbkb",    check_implicit_always},
>> > > +  {"zks", "zbkc",    check_implicit_always},
>> > > +  {"zks", "zbkx",    check_implicit_always},
>> > > +  {"zks", "zksed",   check_implicit_always},
>> > > +  {"zks", "zksh",    check_implicit_always},
>> > >    {NULL, NULL, NULL}
>> > >  };
>> > >
>> > > @@ -1127,6 +1141,7 @@ static struct riscv_supported_ext riscv_supported_std_ext[] =
>> > >    {"c",              ISA_SPEC_CLASS_20190608,        2, 0, 0 },
>> > >    {"c",              ISA_SPEC_CLASS_2P2,             2, 0, 0 },
>> > >    {"b",              ISA_SPEC_CLASS_NONE, RISCV_UNKNOWN_VERSION, RISCV_UNKNOWN_VERSION, 0 },
>> > > +  {"k",              ISA_SPEC_CLASS_NONE, RISCV_UNKNOWN_VERSION, RISCV_UNKNOWN_VERSION, 0 },
>> >
>> > May I ask what purpose this addition serves? Without its use enabling
>> > smaller scope extensions implicitly, I find it at best unhelpful that
>> > ".option arch, +k" is accepted without having any effect.
>> >
>> > Jan
>>
>> It's same like bitmanip extension, add this will make k extension as a subextension
>> and set it's canonical order as ISA spec defined.
> 
> Let me point out that this is not the same as with the
> bit-manipulation family of extensions.
> Zb[abcs] are all standalone extensions, and there is no Zb.

Then there the same question arises: Why does gas accept ".option arch, +b"?

Jan