nibrunieAtSi5 wrote: > We don't usually do this unless there is a sentence in the spec indicating > one extension implies or depends on another. I don't think such a sentence > exists. >
I believe there is not such sentence in the spec but this is an oversight. Zvknhb is clearly a superset containing Zvknha, and the fact that the vector crypto spec defines them independently is not ideal IMO. > In hardware, would you have two different circuits implementing SHA256 if > you support zvkhna and zvknhb? Definitely if you support both, it would be sub-optimal to duplicate that hardware. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/178680 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
