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.
|Extension Name||Included Extensions|
(e.g. Zkr, Zbk[bcx], ...)
|Submitting TG||Contact(s) name and email|
(Chair, Vice-chair, Architect, Editor, etc.)
|Status||Status Date||projected completion date||Comments/blockers/next steps|
Martin Maas (firstname.lastname@example.org)
|Submitted||23 July 2021||Q4 '21||Initial full review completed. Review of eventual updated spec to be done once submitted.|
|Packed SIMD||Zpsfoperand, Zprvsfextra, Zpn, Zbp[??]||P||Chuanhua Chang (email@example.com)||Submitted||24 June 2021||Started, tbd finish|
|psABI||psABI||Software||Kito Cheng (firstname.lastname@example.org)||Submitted||13 April 2022||Q2 '22||Full review|
|Wait on Reservation Set||Zawrs||Fast-track||Vedvyas Shanbhogue (email@example.com)||Submitted||4 May 2022||Q2 '22||Full 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.