On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:29:04PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:19:41PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
...
> > +const struct riscv_isa_ext_data riscv_isa_ext[] = {
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicboz, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOZ),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicntr, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICNTR),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicsr, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICSR),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zifencei, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIFENCEI),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihintpause, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihpm, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHPM),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zba, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBA),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbs, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBS),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(smaia, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SMAIA),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(ssaia, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSAIA),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sscofpmf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sstc, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svinval, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svnapot, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVNAPOT),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svpbmt, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVPBMT),
> > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA("", RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX),
>
> I think we can either drop this null entry or drop the count variable
> below. My preference would be to drop the count variable, and always
> loop to the null.
Eh, never mind, the entry isn't null, it's "". Why do we have that entry
though? I guess it can be dropped?
Thanks,
drew
