AR: List which extensions were considered. #881
Conversation
|
Did I miss any extensions? |
timsifive
force-pushed
the
extensions
branch
from
d7e9aa4 to
0f3cace
Compare
| \item Sm1p13 % E.g. exceptions | ||
| \item Ss1p13 % Mention S-Mode in various trigger stuff |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would say 1.12. Although we have early hints of the content, I haven't even seen a draft of 1.13 yet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's nothing expected in 1.13 that would have any Debug impact.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So saying 1.12 (which is my preference also) is OK here? I only wrote 1.13 because that was in Greg's e-mail.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the one hand one could only say support up through 1.12, but that will then leave people wondering whether Debug 1.0 supports up through 1.13 (and 1.13 will be frozen well before Debug gets ratified).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess that I'm OK with either. If I see something shocking in 1.13 then I may raise a red flag later. But it sounds like that won't be necessary. So let's just stick with 1.13.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great. We'll stick with 1.13.
|
Also Zawrs because we refer to wrs.sto and wrs.nto. That's the only other one that seemed appropriate when I reviewed https://wiki.riscv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=16458762 (recently ratified extensions). |
I added a hint as to how they were considered as LaTeX comments, because I want to keep that info but don't want to word it nicely/completely enough to actually have it as part of the spec text.
timsifive
force-pushed
the
extensions
branch
from
0f3cace to
3ef1852
Compare
|
I've added Zawrs |
I added a hint as to how they were considered as LaTeX comments, because I want to keep that info but don't want to word it nicely/completely enough to actually have it as part of the spec text.