From 5595f3eb3dc6a274b4f757b60a3a8bc22652c7a6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lkcl Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:41:58 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] --- openpower/sv/svp_rewrite/svp64/discussion.mdwn | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/openpower/sv/svp_rewrite/svp64/discussion.mdwn b/openpower/sv/svp_rewrite/svp64/discussion.mdwn index 4973ff42b..9d0950161 100644 --- a/openpower/sv/svp_rewrite/svp64/discussion.mdwn +++ b/openpower/sv/svp_rewrite/svp64/discussion.mdwn @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ # Note about naming -the original assessment for SVP from 18 months ago concluded that it should be easy for scalar (non SV) instructions to get at the exact same scalar registers when in SVP mode. otherwise scalar v3.0B code needs to restrict itself to a massively truncated subset of the scalar registers numbered 0-31 (only r0, r4, r8...) whuch hugely interferes with ABIs to such an extent that it would compromise SV. +the original assessment for SVP from 18 months ago concluded that it should be easy for scalar (non SV) instructions to get at the exact same scalar registers when in SVP mode. otherwise scalar v3.0B code needs to restrict itself to a massively truncated subset of the scalar registers numbered 0-31 (only r0, r4, r8...) which hugely interferes with ABIs to such an extent that it would compromise SV. question: has anything changed about the assessment that was done, which concluded that for scalar SVP regs they should overlap completely with scalar ISA regs? -- 2.30.2