Skip to content

Conversation

@dhower-qc
Copy link
Collaborator

fixes #446

Copy link
Collaborator

@ThinkOpenly ThinkOpenly left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems fine. If RV128/C was approved, do we have the ability to conditionally include these instructions?

@AFOliveira
Copy link
Collaborator

AFOliveira commented Feb 3, 2025

Seems fine. If RV128/C was approved, do we have the ability to conditionally include these instructions?

The UDB instruction schema has a field base: which usually until now only defined 32 or 64 when needed, I believe we could follow the same approach for this.

@dhower-qc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Yes, in theory the schema supports RV128. The backend is another story...for better or worse, there are a ton of places we assume 64 is the largest XLEN

@dhower-qc dhower-qc merged commit 38cd9f2 into main Feb 3, 2025
11 checks passed
@dhower-qc dhower-qc deleted the rv128 branch February 3, 2025 14:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

MC100-32 has 128-bit instructions like c.lq and c.sq

4 participants