Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update charter.adoc per Greg's feedback #1
Update charter.adoc per Greg's feedback #1
Changes from 1 commit
94a4b8d
2015875
7c3c6aa
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we want to mention zero cost as well as zero overhead. That is, also clarify that implementing the extension should (even when disabled) should have zero additional performance cost?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure I understand the cost vs overhead distinction. But I wasn't thinking that we would aim to mandate no overhead, at least when the capability is enabled. Rather, my thinking was that we craft the ISA to ensure there is a viable path to an implementation that adds no overhead (besides interrupts) when the capability is enabled. But it will probably always be cheaper to implement with some slowdown, and I didn't think we wanted to forbid that.
I agree that, when the capability is not enabled, there should be no overhead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just tweaked the language there, now says
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, I think I missed the significance of the phrase "aiming to require" first time around.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, that seemed confusing in retrospect. I revised it again, have a look.