From 78c9417ece58ab7451cb639e08c125cafac9ab42 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:54:35 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] clarify --- isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn b/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn index 6e7aa4a6a..cad45abe0 100644 --- a/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn +++ b/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn @@ -382,7 +382,11 @@ does not meet the full requirements to be "non-invasive" and "backwards compatible" with pre-existing (pre-Standards-finalised) implementations. It does however stand on its own merit as a way to extend the extremely small Custom Extension opcode space, even if it itself implemented *as* -a Custom Extension. +a Custom Extension into which *other* Custom Extensions are subsequently +shoe-horned. This approach has the advantage that it requires no "approval" +from the RISC-V Foundation... but without the RISC-V Standard "approval" +guaranteeing no binary-encoding conflicts, still does not actually solve the +problem (if deployed as a Custom Extension for extending Custom Extensions). Overall the mvendor/march-id WARL idea meets the three requirements, and is the only idea that meets the three requirements: -- 2.30.2