4 ms·
Do you have a source on GCC supporting v 0.7.1? That is contrary to what I've read.
by CameronNemo 3y ago
Do you have a source on GCC supporting v 0.7.1? That is contrary to what I've read.
- snvzz 3y agoOn a personal level, I prefer upstream not to have anything non-ratified. Companies that use these should bear the cost of maintaining the toolchain, not upstream. There's this tree[0] which has support. I thought it actually got merged, but I'm currently struggling to find anything about it. 0. https://github.com/brucehoult/riscv-gnu-toolchain/tree/rvv-0.7.1 https://github.com/brucehoult/riscv-gnu-toolchain/tree/rvv-0...
- brucehoult 3y agoMy repo is relatively old, gcc 9.2.0. Not that there's anything much wrong with gcc from August 2019! I've been using gcc since 2002. THead have a newer version based on gcc 10.2.0. https://github.com/T-head-Semi/xuantie-gnu-toolchain https://github.com/T-head-Semi/xuantie-gnu-toolchain But it doesn't really matter. There is no support in the C language for RVV 0.7.1, you just have to write either plain assembly language or inline asm for your RVV code. Which means you need a binutils that supports RVV 0.7.1 to assemble your vector code, but you can compile the rest of your program with the latest upstream gcc. Then you can link the .o files. Note that even though there is support for RVV 1.0 "intrinsic functions" in C compilers, SiFive just submitted RVV 1.0 support for FFmpeg and it's written in pure assembly language. https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2023-May/309722.html https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2023-May/309722.ht...