On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 11:51:05AM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 09:30:32AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 10:52:22AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 09:43:16 PDT (-0700), Charlie Jenkins wrote: > > ... > > > > It seems to me that it will be significantly more challenging to use > > > > riscv-opcodes than it would for people to just hand create the macros > > > > that they need. > > > > > > Ya, riscv-opcodes is pretty custy. We stopped using it elsewhere ages ago. > > > > Ah, pity I didn't know the history of it or I wouldn't have suggested it, > > wasting Charlie's time (sorry, Charlie!). So everywhere that needs > > encodings are manually scraping them from the PDFs? Or maybe we can write > > our own parser which converts adoc/wavedrom files[1] to Linux C? > > > > [1] https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/tree/main/src/images/wavedrom > > The problem with the wavedrom files is that there are no standard for > how each instruction is identified. The title of of the adoc gives some > insight and there is generally a funct3 or specific opcode that is > associated with the instruction but it would be kind of messy to write a > script to parse that. I think manually constructing the instructions is > fine. When somebody wants to add a new instruction they probably will > not need to add very many at a time, so it should be only a couple of > lines that they will be able to test. > OK, we'll just have to prop our eyelids open with toothpicks to get through the review of the initial mass conversion. Thanks, drew
