Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Delete more nonexistent extensions from the naming constraints
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
@aswaterman
aswaterman committed Apr 24, 2022
1 parent 6b1754c commit f5f9c27
Showing 1 changed file with 1 addition and 1 deletion.
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/naming.tex
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ \section{Additional Standard Extension Names}
2.0 of same.

The first letter following the ``Z'' conventionally indicates the most closely
related alphabetical extension category, IMAFDQLCBKJTPV. For the ``Zam''
related alphabetical extension category, IMAFDQCV. For the ``Zam''
extension for misaligned atomics, for example, the letter ``a'' indicates the
extension is related to the ``A'' standard extension. If multiple ``Z''
extensions are named, they should be ordered first by category, then
Expand Down

5 comments on commit f5f9c27

@kito-cheng
Copy link
Member

@kito-cheng kito-cheng commented on f5f9c27 Apr 25, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We really need this order here, otherwise we didn't know what the right canonical order among zb*, zk* and other z* extensions.

FYI: @a4lg

@aswaterman
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As I mentioned on the issue tracker, my opinion is that enforcing the order be canonicalized is the bug. It doesn’t really matter whether Zj* comes before or after Zk*, and enforcing this ordering makes it harder to compose ISA strings. Making the ordering rules strict creates more problems than it solves.

@kito-cheng
Copy link
Member

@kito-cheng kito-cheng commented on f5f9c27 Apr 25, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree it doesn’t really matter whether Zj* comes before or after Zk*, but it does matter for zv*, zb* and zk*, I am not intend to argue the usability of the order here, it's defined in ISA spec, and most SW tools follow that, and that still existing in ISA spec so we try to follow that and disambiguate if possible, if that really NOT matter, that should really removed from the spec.

@aswaterman
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am saying that IMO ordering should not matter for Zv*, Zb*, etc., either. I know that relaxing this would affect the tools, but relaxations are backwards-compatible. In any case, the spec will be updated once the decision is made. No decision has been made yet.

@kito-cheng
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess I should push this riscv-non-isa/riscv-toolchain-conventions#14 more hard :P

Please sign in to comment.