Bruce Hoult

@aswaterman I certainly agree with that. We want to leave the door unlocked, but maybe a bit sticky... What is going to make an instruction longer than 16 bytes --...

@aswaterman yes, but if maximum length instruction possible encoded in the first 16 bit packet (leaving room for rd and rs1) was the overriding criterion then you'd skip the unary...

@asb I'd think technically *everything* is subject to change, as nothing has been ratified yet. If you've build hardware already then you know (or should have known) that at some...

@aswaterman what about extending by 32 bits at a time after 96? xxxxxxxxxx011111 48 bits xxxxxxxxx0111111 64 bits xxx0xxxxx1111111 80 bits x001xxxxx1111111 96 bits x011xxxxx1111111 128 bits x101xxxxx1111111 160 bits...

@asb I agree. If there is anything that is not proposed to be ratified in this round then that should be stated. The default assumption is everything in the document...

I generally like @cliffordwolf's scheme It has the benefit's he mentions, plus allows up to 192 bit instructions with the length encoded purely in the first 16 bit packet. One...

What happened to copy-down methods? I thought that was one of the major features Open Dylan has but Gwydion doesn't? It would also be completely correct, and faster than what...

> My understanding of the intent of the RVA ISA Profiles is that Linux distros will target an RVA profile. At some point going forward that will be RVA22. As...

I totally agree with the basic principle of specifying the full address range you want to work on, and the hardware telling you how much of it it actually did....

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 6:28 PM John Ingalls wrote: > I wonder whether specifying address ranges and returning the number of > bytes affected is too CISC-y. >...