Explicitly write down the rule of architecture extension test macros #28
Conversation
We didn't write the rule explicitly, so people might not expect those marco to be available if it's not appear on the table. So let document that, and add more note to say people can expect that even not list on the table.
|
I've left a couple of minor phrasing suggestions. One alternate approach would be to cut down the table and just list a few examples, on the basis that keeping it up to date is extra work that might not have much value for end users. |
|
@asb Seems like those suggestion are missing by some accident? Did you mind reply those suggestion again? |
| @@ -102,6 +102,14 @@ availability and version for certain extension, however not all compilers are | |||
| supported, so you should check `__riscv_arch_test` to make sure this compiler | |||
| is supporting those preprocessor definitions. | |||
|
|
|||
| The naming rule of architecture extension test macros is `__riscv_<ext_name>`, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"naming rule of" => "naming rule for"
| @@ -130,6 +138,11 @@ For example: | |||
| | __riscv_zbs | Arch Version | `Zbs` extension is available. | | |||
| | __riscv_zfh | Arch Version | `Zfh` extension is available. | | |||
|
|
|||
| NOTE: The table might not list all architecture extension test macros for | |||
| ratified extensions due to not up-to-date, and might not list unratified | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps just simplify to: "NOTE: The table may not be exhaustive, as it might not be fully up-to-date with all ratified architecture extensions and may not list unratified extensions."
Ah, they were still pending and unsubmitted. Fixed now. |
We didn't write the rule explicitly, so people might not expect those marco
to be available if it's not appear on the table.
So let document that, and add more note to say people can expect that
even not list on the table.