Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RV32E tracking issue #62

Open
asb opened this issue Nov 21, 2017 · 1 comment
Open

RV32E tracking issue #62

asb opened this issue Nov 21, 2017 · 1 comment

Comments

@asb
Copy link
Collaborator

asb commented Nov 21, 2017

I've been having some questions about RV32E support in LLVM+Clang. It's difficult to consider adding support as the RV32E instruction set extension itself isn't yet "frozen" and the ABI isn't fully documented. A little more documentation on the proposed ABI has been added recently (thanks!), but I thought it would be worth making an issue to track the work that still needs to be done.

As far as I can see, we need:

  • Syscall ABI for RV32E (Syscall ABI for RV32E #11). Discussion on that issue also mentions dynamic linking
  • An integer register convention table for RV32E.
  • Add an RV32E table to "Default ABIs and type sizes" (or else specify if RV32E is identical to RV32G). Are long long and doubles still 8-byte aligned? Is long double still 16 bytes?

Are there other issues that need to be addressed? Please note: I'm simply creating this issue to track what needs to be done, not to claim it - I'm not currently distributing or directly supporting RV32E IP myself.

@kito-cheng
Copy link
Collaborator

kito-cheng commented Nov 27, 2017

  • Add an RV32E table to "Default ABIs and type sizes" (or else specify if RV32E is identical to RV32G). Are long long and doubles still 8-byte aligned? Is long double still 16 bytes?

For this item, it seems all alignment can align to 4 byte is fine since stack is 4 byte align, any alignment greater than stack align seems meaningless.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants