artagnon wrote: > > > zvknha and zvknhb are mutually exclusive [riscv/riscv-crypto#364 > > > (comment)](https://github.com/riscv/riscv-crypto/issues/364#issuecomment-1726782096) > > > > > > I don't understand the comment: the table is quite clear? > > The table just says both zvknha and zvknhb implement sha256, it doesn’t mean > zvknhb implies zvknha unless there’s wording saying that as @topperc > mentioned.
Moreover, the table clearly shows that zvknha is a subset of zvknhb. In hardware, would you have two different circuits implementing SHA256 if you support zvkhna and zvknhb? If not, then I don't see the semantic difference. Perhaps the missing wording is an oversight? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/178680 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
