[PATCH v5] RISC-V: Support XTheadVector extension

[Jeff Law]

On 1/18/24 07:43, Christoph Müllner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 4:18 AM Jun Sha (Joshua)
> <cooper.joshua@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>> This patch series presents gcc implementation of the XTheadVector
>> extension [1].
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/T-head-Semi/thead-extension-spec/
>>
>> For some vector patterns that cannot be avoided, we use
>> "!TARGET_XTHEADVECTOR" to disable them in order not to
>> generate instructions that xtheadvector does not support,
>> causing 10 changes in vector.md.
>>
>> For the th. prefix issue, we use current_output_insn and
>> the ASM_OUTPUT_OPCODE hook instead of directly modifying
>> patterns in vector.md.
>>
>> We have run the GCC test suite and can confirm that there
>> are no regressions.
>>
>> Furthermore, we have run the tests in
>> https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/rvv-intrinsic-doc/tree/main/examples,
>> and all the tests passed.
>>
>> Co-authored-by: Jin Ma <jinma@linux.alibaba.com>
>> Co-authored-by: Xianmiao Qu <cooper.qu@linux.alibaba.com>
>> Co-authored-by: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu>
>>
>> [PATCH v4] RISC-V: Introduce XTheadVector as a subset of V1.0.0
>> [PATCH v5] RISC-V: Adds the prefix "th." for the instructions of XTheadVector
>> [PATCH v6] RISC-V: Handle differences between XTheadvector and Vector
>> [PATCH v6] RISC-V: Add support for xtheadvector-specific intrinsics
>> [PATCH v6] RISC-V: Fix register overlap issue for some xtheadvector instructions
>> [PATCH v5] RISC-V: Rewrite some instructions using ASM targethook
> 
> All patches of this series got either "LGTM" or "OK":
> * https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/643339.html
> * https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642798.html
> * https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642799.html
> * https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642800.html
> * https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642801.html
> * https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642802.html
> 
> As mentioned earlier, I have rebased the patches, retested them locally and
> (after ensuring there are no regressions) pushed them.
> 
> To all involved people: thank you very much!
> A special 'thank you' goes to Juzhe, who did a great job in reviewing
> the patches
> and providing suggestions to get the code into shape!
Likewise.  Glad to see we were able to push this through to a reasonable 
conclusion and a huge thanks to Juzhe for all his work on the review side.

Jeff