-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 167
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add B extension #385
Add B extension #385
Conversation
Yes, that's why Zmmul and M can both be set. Clearing misa.M is then just
removing the DIV/REM instructions but not the MUL instructions.
I don't know why anyone would ever do that, but mine is not to reason
why....
…On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 1:41 PM Ved Shanbhogue ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In model/riscv_insts_zba.sail
<#385 (comment)>:
> @@ -71,8 +71,8 @@
/* ****************************************************************** */
union clause ast = RISCV_SLLIUW : (bits(6), regidx, regidx)
-mapping clause encdec = RISCV_SLLIUW(shamt, rs1, rd) if haveZba() & sizeof(xlen) == 64
- <-> 0b000010 @ shamt @ rs1 @ 0b001 @ rd @ 0b0011011 if haveZba() & sizeof(xlen) == 64
+mapping clause encdec = RISCV_SLLIUW(shamt, rs1, rd) if (haveZba() | haveBExt()) & sizeof(xlen) == 64
But that not allow expressing behavior of clearing B clearly. For
instance, if misa.B and haveZba was both 1 at reset. Then clearing B would
leave Zba available. But if misa.B was 1 and haveZba was 0 at reset then
clearing B would disable Zba. Forcing state of Zba to misa.B would not
allow expressing this.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#385 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHPXVJXNODU5VNGOK5IACG3YNMJAXAVCNFSM6AAAAABBQPMYXSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMYTQMBXHA4DCNBQGI>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
@billmcspadden-riscv this spec was recently ratified, can this be merged? |
Does the |
Please see the conversation thread in this PR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thanks! @jrtc27 does this look ok to you?
I'll merge this in a couple of days if nobody objects. @ved-rivos what would you say your highest priority PR is? I think it would be good to get some more merged if possible. |
Specification: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-b