On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 1:46 PM Richard Henderson
<richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 2/22/21 10:59 PM, frank.ch...@sifive.com wrote:
> > From: Frank Chang <frank.ch...@sifive.com>
> >
> > vs() should return -RISCV_EXCP_ILLEGAL_INST instead of -1 if rvv feature
> > is not enabled.
> >
> > If -1 is returned, exception will be raised and cs->exception_index will
> > be set to the negative return value. The exception will then be treated
> > as an instruction access fault instead of illegal instruction fault.
>
> It does seem an unfortunate interface; -1 seems so tempting, but does not by
> itself mean anything.
>
> I wonder if we should dispense with the whole "negative number" thing and
> simply return an exception value. Then for bonus points put all of the
> RISCV_EXCP_* values in an enumeration, and return that type from these
> functions so that it's perfectly clear what the interface really is.
Good idea!
Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com>
Alistair
>
> That said,
>
> > @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ static int vs(CPURISCVState *env, int csrno)
> > if (env->misa & RVV) {
> > return 0;
> > }
> > - return -1;
> > + return -RISCV_EXCP_ILLEGAL_INST;
>
> this fixes the immediate bug, so
> Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
>
>
> r~
>
