search

riscv / riscv-zalasr

The ISA specification for the Zalasr extension.
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
1 stars 1 forks source link

Wording and RESERVED encodings: why "should not", not "must not"? #4

Closed a4lg closed 1 year ago

a4lg commented 1 year ago

RV32 should not implement the d and q variants and RV64 should not implement the q variant.

I'm not sure why they use "should not", not "must not".

If you would like to leave wider than XLEN variants (e.g. ld.aq on RV32), I think you need to (at least) describe "over XLEN handling" on store-release operations but... looking at the SAIL code, I think "wider than XLEN" is not considered.

If my understandings are correct, changing "should not" to "must not" here will reflect your intent as in the SAIL code (e.g. ld.aq is not implemented in RV32).

mehnadnerd commented 1 year ago

You are right. I've corrected this in https://github.com/mehnadnerd/riscv-zalasr/commit/321cea1dcc1cf53a7ebee4a431300f3c5ff6fe31.