Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] bfd/RISC-V: Zv{b,k}* imply Zve32x
Project / Subsystem
binutils / bfd/risc-v
Date
2026-07-21
Proposer
Nelson Chu <nelson.chu1990@gmail.com>
Source type
public_inbox
Consensus
Proposed
Sentiment
—/10
Technical tradeoffs
- • Ensuring correct adherence to the RISC-V specification versus maintaining compatibility with existing binutils handling.
All attributes
- project
- binutils
- subsystem
- bfd/risc-v
- patch_id
- —
- discussion_id
- CAHT-pJwkccCTquFHm-grzdWTLX1DAnpK6yprUFAztB0Px1qNOg@mail.gmail.com
- source_type
- public_inbox
- title
- Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] bfd/RISC-V: Zv{b,k}* imply Zve32x
- headline
- RISC-V: Zv{b,k}* imply Zve32x
- tldr
- Discussion on correct ordering of RISC-V extensions in binutils, specifically concerning 'zve32x' implication.
- proposer
- Nelson Chu <nelson.chu1990@gmail.com>
- consensus
- Proposed
- outcome
- proposed
- sentiment_score
- —
- technical_tradeoffs
-
- • Ensuring correct adherence to the RISC-V specification versus maintaining compatibility with existing binutils handling.
- series_id
- binutils:bfd/risc-v: zv{b,k}* imply zve32x
- series_role
- reply
- series_parts
- []
- tags
-
- • risc-v
- • extensions
- • binutils
- • isa
- • specification
- bugzilla_url
- —
- date
- 2026-07-21T00:00:00.000Z
Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] bfd/RISC-V: Zv{b,k}* imply Zve32x
This discussion centers on the correct placement and implication of RISC-V extensions in binutils, specifically addressing whether ‘zve32x’ should be implied by extensions like ‘zvbc’ and ‘zvkb’. Nelson Chu argues for the current alphabetical ordering within categories based on the ISA specification, while also noting potential deviations from naming rules in ratified extensions. Jan Beulich’s comments raise questions about the ordering within the riscv_supported_std_z_ext tables.