On Tue, 17 May 2022 13:44:51 +0200 Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 10:17 +0200, Nico Boehr wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-05-16 at 18:47 +0200, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote: > > > On 5/16/22 11:07, Nico Boehr wrote: > > [...] > > > > > + expected_key.val = i * 2; > > > > + > > > > + /* ignore reference bit */ > > > > > > Why? Are there any implicit references I'm missing? > > > > Since the PoP specifies (p. 5-122): > > > > "The record of references provided by the reference > > bit is not necessarily accurate. However, in the major- > > ity of situations, reference recording approximately > > coincides with the related storage reference." > > > > I don't really see a way to test this properly. > > > > Maybe I missed something? > > No I think you're right, although in practice the reference bits should > match. Or did you observe a mismatch? the point is that the architecture allows for mismatches (in particular I think it is allowed to overindicate changes) ignoring that bit is the correct thing to do
