[Libre-soc-dev] setvl lost its reserved fields (was: setvl gaining CTR mode)

[lkcl]

To all VCs and their Agents

To all OPF ISA WG Voting Members

To all OPF Stakeholders

Please disregard Jacob Lifshay's message in its entirety.

Jacob has Asperger's and has difficulty taking context into consideration.

At no time shall any message in this thread shall any matter raised by Jacob Lifshay constitute a change to the specification nor an alteration of any Contractual commitments made.

The only reason this matter is publicly discussed is because NLnet requires full transparency as part of our funding remit.

Please disregard all messages from Jacob Lifshay on this thread in their entirety.

Signed,

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton,
Technical Director RED Semiconductor Ltd.


On July 3, 2022 12:14:48 PM GMT+01:00, Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 3, 2022, 04:04 lkcl <luke.leighton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> even Jacob's idea to use one bit of SVi would have serious knock-on
>> implications in binutils, unit tests, ISACaller, and TestIssuer,
>because
>> that "one bit" has to be excluded from being allowed to be used.
>syntax
>> errors raised at the bare minimum in binutils.
>>
>
>imho syntax errors (or any other binutils changes) aren't strictly
>necessary --
>this is like *(int *)1 in c isn't a syntax error though it is most
>likely
>UB.
>
>imho, ever since SVi became a 7-bit field again, the MSB is required to
>be
>a zero (otherwise MVL and VL would get set to 65 or greater). if we
>don't
>check that, wether or not my spec change is applied, the code is just
>plain
>wrong.
>
>my change is merely making that explicit in the spec.
>
>Jacob