Xtensa LX-7 (or LX-6) e.g: ESP32 - S2 - S3 - C3 - H4... possible support ?

[alhyene]

Hi,
I see your extension seem to support allmost all of RISC-V opcodes... But as you know it's a great challenge to integrate all of them...

Then I'm thinking about your extension to be extended in some of way like to be more RISC architecture selective, e.g:

acorn
generic(s)
Xtensa
other(s)

It could be great to be extended.
8*)

[alhyene]

Often, most of them have some co-processor(s) and with their exotic opcodes, then
I wish something like be more specific, e.g:

Selecting which ARM topologie we're in.

?

[sunshaoce]

Hi, thanks for the suggestion.

This extension currently supports selecting vendor-specific/custom RISC-V extensions in the settings, so adding more non-standard RISC-V extensions is certainly possible within the current design.

However, Xtensa is a different ISA family rather than a RISC-V extension. In addition, the standard RISC-V extensions are enabled by default and cannot currently be disabled, so that limitation would need to be taken into account.

Also, forks or derivative versions based on this extension are always welcome.

[alhyene]

Ok, then you're talking esp32(...) ISA opcodes are not RISC-V valid ?

???

[alhyene]

But I wish to do something for ESP32... Maybe a fork... Hop-to...
8*)

[alhyene]

ps: I like you job, maybe an esp32 one.

[sunshaoce]

RISC-V-based ESP32 chips are already supported.

The others cannot be supported because they use a different ISA and conflict with the current implementation.

[alhyene]

Thanks for having replyed,

I was in misunderstanding because I'm using your extension on ESP32-S3 and some opcodes seem to be recognized, then I think some Xtensa opcodes/registers have similar syntax as RISC-V one.

I wish try to make a fork... But I'm in troubles with the fact ESP32-S3 have a little low power RISC-V co-processor (RV32IMC) and don't know if/how VSCODE could differentiate between assembly languages in a same project.

e.g: .s, .S, .asm , .riscv, .a51, .z80...

Then activating extensions which share the same suffix are in conflict ?

For this case maybe an .esp32 one look good or by adding a header in the file describing wich uP we're talking about ?