Re: [RISC-V] [tech-privileged] Comments re {priv,unpriv}-isa-asciidoc-20240411.pdf

Skip to first unread message

Jeff Scheel

Apr 19, 2024, 6:15:58 AMApr 19
to, RISC-V ISA Dev,, tech-privileged
Hi, David, I'm sorry you had a problem.  But, the issue is not that the group has been archived, but you used the wrong email address.

"ISA-Dev", as described in the Appendix of the RISC-V Lifecycle Guide, is emailed at and has not been archived.  Due to the fact that non-members need to be able to participate, it is a Google Group and not a Groups.IO mailing list.

I'm sorry for any confusion or inconvenience.

Jeff Scheel (he/him/his)
Director of Technical Programs, RISC-V International

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 6:50 PM David Weaver via <> wrote:

I sent the below to, but it bounced back.  Bill T says that the isa-list email list has been archived, so I’m now sending this to the Priv and Unpriv lists, instead…



From: David Weaver
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 2:53 PM
Subject: Comments re {priv,unpriv}-isa-asciidoc-20240411.pdf


Here are some comments about the integrated Unpriv ISA spec:

  • Will the chapters permanently remain in this same order?  That is highly desirable, because vendor documentation should be able to refer to (for example) “Chapter 27 of the RISC-V Unpriv ISA spec” and that should always be the “Zc” extension chapter.  (obviously, vendor docs should not attempt to refer to page #s, which are far more subject to change)


  • Chapter 28’s title claims that it’s the “B” extension chapter.  But, since only Zba, Zbb, and Zbs are officially part of the “B” extension, shouldn’t definitions of Zbc, Zbkb, Zbkc, and Zbkx then move to a separate chapter? 
    …Or the chapter could be renamed and not call it “the B Extension” – in which case, it might be called something like the “Zb family of extensions”?
    The problem is that, if left as-is, Chapter 28’s title creates conflict/confusion with references to the “B” extension – for example,  the misa.B bit description in the Priv doc, when it refers to “B extension”.

  • Wouldn’t Chapters 34, 35, 36, and 37 better appear as Appendixes?  Since they’re largely informative, that might be a better place for them … plus then it allows new extensions to be added starting at Chapter 34.  
    …Another alternative, perhaps less desirable, would be every time a new normative ISA chapter is added, to renumber these 4 chapters and move them to the end of the numbered chapters.


And about the integrated Priv ISA spec:

  • similar to above (and for the same reasons), would Chapters 19 and 20 be better-off as Appendixes instead of Chapters?




You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#1921) | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe []


Reply all
Reply to author
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
0 new messages