On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 02:56:32PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote: > Hi Conor, > > I'm digging this back up because I'm basing Zicboz on it. > > If we take "riscv: improve boot time isa extensions handling", then this > becomes a bunch of manually enumerated defines > > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF 26 > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVPBMT 27 > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM 28 > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE 29 > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC 30 > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL 31 > > Keeping those in alphabetical order would either require manually > reenumerating them or to allow the numbers to be out of order as > we add more extensions. I think I'd prefer we just add new > extensions at the bottom and keep the numbers in order. Yes. I mentioned that on one of the earlier versions of Jisheng's patchset - initially I blindly said "alphabetical please". I quickly realised that that was a really stupid idea as it is would just be an _invitiation_ for bugs if we did, since names are far more easily searchable than figuring out the max in the manual enumeration. Since Jisheng's patchset just deleted what I had resorted, I left this change as-was. Just need to make sure any comment about ordering also gets removed when the enum goes away. I'll keep an eye on for-next to make sure that it does. TL;DR I agree! Thanks, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
