Good catch, and I've filed the issue #872

I am glad that my 'digging' into extension name consistency is bringing some fruits! Being frank i did NOT refresh my (old ...) knowledge of base ISA PDF as I knew base did not change

The spec in both chapters 26 and 28.3 says “G” = “IMAFDZicsr_Zifencei”. It looks like the entry in table 28.1 is incorrect. Can you file a PR against that table to correct it to match the

Sorry, I didn't mean it was correct; I was just explaining why the spreadsheet lists it that way. And it didn't mean to imply that S1p12 was any ratified extension or macro name, I was just giving an

Can I just say that Imperas's view doesn't intrinsically make it a correct view. To be precise, the Priv 1.12 spec (i.e. the Priv 1.12 document) is a superset of more than just the Sm1p12 and Ss1p12

To be clear: the 1.12 version, from the Imperas point of view (which is the origin of this list), is basically just a macro for Sm1p11_Sm1p12_Ss1p11_Ss1p12. Just as G is a macro for IMADZifencei.

The 'subset of ...' should not be an issue. The current Priv and Unpriv documents literally are just that. They each contain a number of individual arch extensions. From a discovery perspective the

Hyphens are not as big problem as 'subset of the contents' is ... /Robert On 7/20/2022 10:32 AM, Greg Favor wrote:

I believe the use of hyphens in the names was an early and incorrect (i.e. disallowed) usage. The proper and official names are as I mentioned in my last email. Please ask the tpm's to correct this

Thanks Greg! Only now (after your explanations ...) I can understand what Sm1-12 and Ss1-12 listed here: https://wiki.riscv.org/display/HOME/Recently+Ratified+Extensions

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

I think we are in-sync - I think this what you provided is very valuable super-set (most likely incomplete, but still very valuable!) According to Mark's (reasonable!) request we

I don't disagree, and make no claim that this list should simply be copied for tech-config. This is just a catalog of (most of) the architecturally valid options defined by the RISC-V privileged and

Hi Allen. This what you provided is very deeply elaborated and very valuable 'set' of data driven from practical use-cases of (different?) simulators in ACT's. Nut my

My list is attached. I am quite sure it is not complete, and is not bug free. It may be a bit cryptic; sheets 3&4 were used to construct the first sheet. This is primarily derived from the Imperas

Agree - I did mean 'all Mandatory extensions' but I said 'all extensions'. /Robert On 7/18/2022 10:50 AM, Greg Favor wrote:

One small correction: Each profile covers all ratified extensions (relevant to that profile, e.g. all Supervisor-level extensions for an 'S' profile), and categories each extension in one of four

Hi, I think it is important to do the following: 1. Identify all ratified (as of today) extensions 1.1. Consider 'tree-structure' of extensions 1.2.

Hi Allen, "I am preparing a list of the architectural options I know about.While many are identified by the architecture string (e.g. Zkne), there are many that are not, though some have been given

Hello all, looking forward to our meeting on Monday at 8:00AM Pacific time, see you all there Join link: https://zoom.us/j/98426919660?pwd=Rm5IV0NFdEhFWHU4VFRjRkVxU2szUT09 Regards, Irma T.