[Libre-soc-isa] [Bug 1052] OPF RFC ls012 writeup: list of RFCs to be proposed to OPF ISA WG

[bugzilla-daemon at libre-soc.org]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1052

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The table of|                            |lkcl=1900
  payments (in EUR)|                            |andrey=600
     for this task;|                            |
        TOML format|                            |

--- Comment #3 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Andrey Miroshnikov from comment #2)
> Spotted a typo.
> https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=libreriscv.git;a=commitdiff;
> h=5f97d3ff1df16450a6cc9ef8cb5b38db6f4c471d

needs a line number... ah! you did it already, awesome.

> In the Bitmanip LUT2/3 section (page 3), the wording of
> "SFFS needs to be stand-alone on its own merits and not "punished" should an
> implementor choose not to implement any aspect of PackedSIMD VSX."
> 
> "punished" may come out a little strong to certain parties. Now I may be
> finicky, but https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=libreriscv.git;a=commitdiff;h=29c507b784b60a5e1c76fdc79c657121574bf551
https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=libreriscv.git;a=commitdiff;h=29c507b784b60a5e1c76fdc79c657121574bf551you
know how vigilant in regards to wording we need to be.

mm.  any suggestions?

how about

`xxeval`.  The same reasoning applies as to fclass: SFFS needs to be
stand-alone on its own merits and should an implementor
choose not to implement any aspect of PackedSIMD VSX the performance
of their product should not be penalised for making that decision.

> 
> In the Tables section (page 4), "mutually exclusively" doesn't sound right
> to me.

it's a mathematical term, english language for the XOR operation.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutually%20exclusive

> 
> Initially I couldn't find the explanation for the "cost" column, but then
> realised the description calls it "XO Cost". I suggest the actual table
> column is also called "XO Cost" to reduce ambiguity.

can you add a dictionary lookup-column-heading-replacement function?
i want to keep the csv file headings short to fit into below 80 chars
use "lookupdict.get(heading, heading)" as it returns the word itself
if there is no entry. neat trick.

> 
> Another issue I found is that entries under PO1 column are "??" for LD/ST
> Post Increment, though that might be a problem with the pdf generation.

no look at the row, they are "TODO".

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.