Remove & rename duplicate word_width <-> bytes mappings

[Timmmm]

• Remove the duplicate mapping functions.
• Rename to size_bytes for consistency with the other two functions.
• Rename size_bits to size_enc, otherwise it's quite confusing that size_bits is not just 8 * size_bytes.

Fixes #423

[github-actions]

Test Results

712 tests  ±0   712 ✅ ±0   0s ⏱️ ±0s
  6 suites ±0     0 💤 ±0 
  1 files   ±0     0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 2c82c30. ± Comparison against base commit a2ffa85.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[Timmmm]

@billmcspadden-riscv can we get this landed too? It's a very simple refactoring - no functional changes - but I have a number of upcoming PRs that depend on this.

[billmcspadden-riscv]

@Timmmm: A couple of comments:

1. While I agree with you that the function name, size_bits(), is not the best, I'm not sure that size_enc() is much better, although it begins to tell you what it's being used for (an encoding of some type.) Can we change the name to something that says it's the word width encoding in bits?
2. Since we're changing names of a generally used function, I'd like to hear from other contributors about the nomenclature change. @arichardson , do you have an opinion of this change?

[arichardson]

I agree that size_enc is a lot better than size_bits (which I would expect to return 8/16/etc.). I agree with @billmcspadden-riscv that it's still a somewhat confusing name, but I can't think of anything better so I'm happy with this change. Maybe @jrtc27 or @Alasdair have other suggestions.

[Timmmm]

Arguably word_width is the confusing name here since RISC-V universally uses "word" to mean "32-bits" not any of the other possible meanings.

But anyway since this is an pareto improvement (i.e. it makes some things better and nothing worse) can we land it and then potentially use better names in a future PR?

[billmcspadden-riscv]

Based on @arichardson 's feedback, I'll do the merge. Bill Mc.

…

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 1:06 PM Tim Hutt ***@***.***> wrote: Arguably word_width is the confusing name here since RISC-V universally uses "word" to mean "32-bits" not any of the other possible meanings. But anyway since this is an pareto improvement (i.e. it makes some things better and nothing worse) can we land it and then potentially use better names in a future PR? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#436 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AXROLOCLOKKQUG37FGFJGS3Y43GK7AVCNFSM6AAAAABE5FICVSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANJQGIZTINJQGE> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Bill McSpadden Formal Verification Engineer RISC-V International mobile: 503-807-9309