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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

FENCE.I encoding: Should we standardize on funct12 instead of imm[11:0]? #1840

Closed
AFOliveira opened this issue Feb 3, 2025 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1843
Closed

FENCE.I encoding: Should we standardize on funct12 instead of imm[11:0]? #1840

AFOliveira opened this issue Feb 3, 2025 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1843

Comments

@AFOliveira
Copy link
Contributor

The FENCE.I encoding diagram shows bits[31:20] labeled as "funct12", but the explanatory text below refers to them as "imm[11:0]". Given that these bits are reserved for future function specification rather than immediate parameters, shouldn't we standardize on using "funct12"?

Image
@aswaterman
Copy link
Member

Agreed.

@AFOliveira AFOliveira mentioned this issue Feb 5, 2025
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Change imm[11:0] to funct12 in FENCE.I foss-for-synopsys-dwc-arc-processors/riscv-isa-manual
2 participants
@aswaterman @AFOliveira