This adds an initial bit of policy around inclusion of vendor extensions. My intention here is to leave all of the actual decision making to a case by case decision on the regular sync calls, but to spell out some of the pieces we've discussed and (I think) have general agreement on.
Details
Diff Detail
Unit Tests
Time | Test | |
---|---|---|
30 ms | x64 debian > LLVM.CodeGen/MIR/AArch64::mirnamer.mir |
Event Timeline
llvm/docs/RISCVUsage.rst | ||
---|---|---|
153 | I think it's hypenated as "Non-Standard" in the spec. |
Two suggestions, but otherwise looks good to me. Thanks!
llvm/docs/RISCVUsage.rst | ||
---|---|---|
151 | This is the first and only reference to "RVI" in this document. It would be better to spell it out as "RISC-V International" | |
155 | "for discussion" -> "for initial discussion, which may lead to a request to write up an RFC on LLVM's Discourse". We don't have a policy here yet - I suspect it might not be the case that _every_ vendor extension needs an RFC (e.g. cases where there's a small number of instructions supported only at the MC layer), but I think it would be good to flag that there are cases where broader LLVM developer buy-in might be necessary, and also make it clear that nothing in this document implies discussion on the sync-up calls bypasses that. |
llvm/docs/RISCVUsage.rst | ||
---|---|---|
151 | Good catch, done. | |
155 | I landed without this change because I didn't feel the wording you suggested clarified meaning. I understand your point, but "for discussion" doesn't imply anything to me about it being a final discussion or otherwise bypassing usual decision making. I'm open to trying to clarify this if you think it's needed, but I think it probably needs phrased differently. |
llvm/docs/RISCVUsage.rst | ||
---|---|---|
155 | I can't immediately think of better phrasing and it's not a big deal either way. I think you see what I'm trying to clarify but I agree attempts to do so perhaps just make it more verbose and less clear. |
This is the first and only reference to "RVI" in this document. It would be better to spell it out as "RISC-V International"