doc: LLVM mtune in 2025.10 Toolchain Only Supports RV32

[bigmagic123]

Important

Clarified in changelog.rst that LLVM pipeline support for Nuclei processor series is RV32 only.

• Documentation:
  • Clarified in changelog.rst that LLVM pipeline support for Nuclei processor series 100/200/300/600/900/1000 is RV32 only.

^{This description was created by for 7de1efd. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to 7de1efd in 1 minute and 32 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. source/toolchain/changelog.rst:53

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a space before the parenthesis for clarity (i.e., 'series (RV32 Only)').
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

2. source/toolchain/changelog.rst:53

• Draft comment:
  Typographical suggestion: Consider adding a space before the opening parenthesis in "series(RV32 Only)" for better readability. For example, consider "series (RV32 Only)".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 30% vs. threshold = 50% This is a very minor stylistic comment about spacing. While the suggestion might improve readability slightly, it's not a functional issue. The rules state "Do NOT make comments that are obvious or unimportant" and "Do NOT comment unless there is clearly a code change required." This is a documentation file (changelog.rst), and the spacing issue is extremely minor. The comment is technically correct - adding a space would follow common English typography conventions - but it's borderline trivial. However, for documentation, proper formatting can be important for professionalism. I need to weigh whether this rises to the level of "clearly a code change required" or if it's too minor. While proper spacing in documentation is good practice, this is an extremely minor stylistic issue that doesn't affect functionality or comprehension. The rules emphasize not making "obvious or unimportant" comments, and a single missing space in a changelog entry could be considered unimportant. However, this is a documentation file where readability and professional formatting matter. The comment is actionable with a clear suggestion, and proper spacing before parentheses is a standard typography convention. It's a quick fix that improves quality. This is a borderline case - it's a minor but valid stylistic improvement to documentation. Given the emphasis on not making unimportant comments and the trivial nature of a single space, I lean toward deleting this comment as it doesn't meet the threshold of "clearly a code change required."

Workflow ID: wflow_KhDEJn3eYY67bj06

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[fanghuaqi]

不是这么写，应该如实写清楚，这里的mtune实现有哪些问题。