On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 08:36:02PM -0800, dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Previously (draft -00) we said that each instruction would have a > status of Permanent, Provisional, or Historical in the IANA registry. > > However, we now have conformance groups about to be merged into the > ISA doc, and at IETF 118 we discussed having each conformance group > have a status of Permanent, Provisional, or Historical. That is, it > makes sense for the status to be at the granularity of conformance > group since one should implement all instructions in a conformance > group together. > > As a result I now believe that each individual instruction no longer > needs its own status since it can be derived from the status of the > conformance group(s) it belongs to. So in the IANA Considerations > section, I plan to remove "status" > > from the list of fields in the instruction sub-registry and ONLY have > "status" in the list of fields for the conformance group > sub-registry). > > Let me know if anyone has a good reason to keep it per-instruction. No objection from me. AFAICT this matches what RISC-V does, which again seems reasonable to emulate. Thanks, David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
