Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


Once arch review results have been provided back to the TG, spec changes corresponding to requested changes/corrections/etc. do not need to be re-reviewed.  But any other substantive post-review architectural changes must be presented back to the Arch Review committee (using the above email) for approval.  Ideally there should not be any such changes, but a simple email summarizing the what and why of any changes is sufficient.

Arch Review Status Table

Extension NameIncluded Extensions
(e.g. Zkr, Zbk[bcx], ...)
Submitting TGContact(s) name and email
(Chair, Vice-chair, Architect, Editor, etc.)
StatusStatus Dateprojected completion dateComments/blockers/next steps
Pointer MaskingZjpmJ

Martin Maas (
Adam Zabrocki (

Submitted23 July 2021Q4 '21Initial full review completed.  Review of eventual updated spec to be done once submitted.
Packed SIMDZpsfoperand, Zprvsfextra, Zpn, Zbp[??]PChuanhua Chang ( June 2021Started, tbd finish

Full review

psABIpsABISoftwareKito Cheng ( April 2022Q2 '22Full review
Wait on Reservation SetZawrsFast-trackVedvyas Shanbhogue ( May 2022Q2 '22Full review

In addition to the extension spec, please submit information about the PoCs and about utility/efficiency (although we don't need all the gory detail - a paragraph or so for each can be fine).  For items considered to not be consequential, a sentence or so explaining why should suffice.