Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Incorrect syntax for some instructions' "definedBy" extensions #319

Open
ThinkOpenly opened this issue Nov 27, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Incorrect syntax for some instructions' "definedBy" extensions #319

ThinkOpenly opened this issue Nov 27, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@ThinkOpenly
Copy link
Collaborator

Some instructions' "definedBy" fields appear to be incorrect, using an open comma-separated list, rather than a subfield refinement with "allOf".

./arch/inst/F/fmaxm.s.yaml:definedBy: F, Zfa
./arch/inst/F/froundnx.s.yaml:definedBy: F, Zfa
./arch/inst/F/fround.s.yaml:definedBy: F, Zfa
./arch/inst/F/fltq.s.yaml:definedBy: F, Zfa
./arch/inst/F/fleq.s.yaml:definedBy: F, Zfa
./arch/inst/F/fli.s.yaml:definedBy: F, Zfa
./arch/inst/F/fminm.s.yaml:definedBy: F, Zfa

I think each of these should be expanded to:

definedBy:
  allOf:
  - F
  - Zfa

Although, since Unpriv spec Version 20240411 says:

The Zfa extension depends on the F extension

maybe only the Zfa extension needs to be called out as the "definedBy" extension?

@ThinkOpenly ThinkOpenly added the bug Something isn't working label Nov 27, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant