toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Only now (after your explanations ...) I can understand what
Sm1-12 and Ss1-12 listed here:
mean. Navigation of 'extension landscape' is hard (and I am not
new to RISC-V ...).
>These are a subset of the contents of the Priv 1.11 and 1.12
IMO it may be really hard for anyone to 'extract' what 'subset of
the contents' Sm1-12 is exactly. Especially that other extensions
in same PDF ('Svnapot' for example ...) have dedicated chapters.
Maybe it is time to mandate that each ratified extension has
separated PDF (or at least separated chapter). Otherwise it
may be really, really hard (for implementer and verifier ...) to
know what particular extension is exactly. IMO saying 'Sm1-12' is
'subset of the contents' is not precise enough ...
On 7/20/2022 10:13 AM, Greg Favor wrote:
Note that some of the version
numbers (specifically priv spec 1.11 and 1.12) have
names, and therefore can be represented by binary
I just want to note ( to make sure there isn't any
confusion) that "Priv 1.11" and "Priv 1.12" are NOT
extensions. They effectively refer to documents that
contain a collection of extensions (a superset of the
The actual extensions that people are trying to refer to
when they say "Priv 1.11" and "Priv 1.12", and their names
are: Sm1p11, Sm1p12, Ss1p11, and Ss1p12. These are a
subset of the contents of the Priv 1.11 and 1.12 documents.
For any ratified extension one shouldn't need to refer to
a dated release of the document that contains the extension
- since ratified extensions are frozen and any new "version"
of an extension must be a separate new extension. Going
forward, version numbers on an extension should be
But, to be more precise, the text of a ratified spec is
allowed to change only to the extent of incorporating "typo"
corrections and clarifications. To that extent it is useful
to look at the latest release of the document containing a
ratified extension so as to see the latest typo fixes and