From aec39102cfe6808143c3e877e83be0b2917ea404 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 08:41:17 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] indent, tidyup --- simple_v_extension/sv_prefix_proposal/discussion.mdwn | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/simple_v_extension/sv_prefix_proposal/discussion.mdwn b/simple_v_extension/sv_prefix_proposal/discussion.mdwn index 215f528ab..f8e05d0b4 100644 --- a/simple_v_extension/sv_prefix_proposal/discussion.mdwn +++ b/simple_v_extension/sv_prefix_proposal/discussion.mdwn @@ -170,9 +170,12 @@ maxVL CSR needed for just SVPrefix. > when looking at a loop assembly sequence > i think you'll find this approach will not work. > RVV loops on which SV loops are directly based needs understanding -> of the use of MIN. Yes MVL is known at compile time +> of the use of MIN within the actual SETVL instruction. +> Yes MVL is known at compile time > however unless MVL is communicates to the hardware, SETVL just -> does not work. +> does not work: it has absolutely no way of knowing when to stop +> processing. The point being: it's not *MVL* that's the problem +> if MVL is not a CSR, it's *VL* that becomes the problem. > The only other option which does work is to set a mandatory > hardcoded MVL baked into the actual hardware. > That results in loss of flexibility and defeats the purpose of SV. -- 2.30.2