Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Applying style guidelines and spelling to M #1835

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jan 30, 2025
Merged

Conversation

kersten1
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR contains changes for the style guidelines that were discussed in the doc-sig. Style guidelines say that extension names and registers, among others should be in back ticks.

This also fixes the old spelling of "implementors".

One thing to discuss is the code sequences. Because they are code sequences, I put the pieces into back ticks to indicate code, as you can see if the following section:

MULH[[S]U] rdh, rs1, rs2; MUL rdl, rs1, rs2 (source register specifiers must be in same order and rdh cannot be the same as rs1 or rs2).

but I can be convinced otherwise.

This PR contains changes for the style guidelines that were discussed in the doc-sig. Style guidelines say that extension names an registers should be in back tics. 

This also fixes the old spelling of "implementors".

Signed-off-by: Kersten Richter <kersten@riscv.org>
Signed-off-by: Kersten Richter <kersten@riscv.org>
Copy link
Member

@aswaterman aswaterman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

`MULH[[S]U] rdh, rs1, rs2; MUL rdl, rs1, rs2`

Because this is meant to represent a statement in assembly language, the entire thing should be in a single set of backticks. The rationale is that the commas and the semicolon are part of the assembly-language syntax; they aren't being used to delimit a list in English.

Putting the individual register specifiers in their own backticks is the right thing to do when they are being referenced individually, as in the phrase "the register specifiers rs1, rs2, and rs3".

LGTM otherwise.

src/m-st-ext.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Kersten Richter <kersten@riscv.org>
src/m-st-ext.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Kersten Richter <kersten@riscv.org>
src/m-st-ext.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Kersten Richter <kersten@riscv.org>
src/m-st-ext.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Kersten Richter <kersten@riscv.org>
Copy link
Member

@aswaterman aswaterman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you, @kersten1!

@aswaterman aswaterman merged commit 6f69218 into main Jan 30, 2025
3 checks passed
@aswaterman aswaterman deleted the kersten1-patch-1 branch January 30, 2025 09:10
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants