> Tested using amo.exp with rv64gc_zalrsc, rv64id_zaamo, rv64id_zalrsc, > rv64id_zabha (using tip-of-tree qemu w/ zabha patches [2] applied for > execution tests).
My interpretation of the Zabha specification, in particular of "The Zabha extension depends upon the Zaamo standard extension", is that rv64id_zabha should result in a dependency violation (some compiler warning). The changes at stake seem instead to make the Zabha extension "select" the Zaamo extension; IOW, these changes seem to make rv64id_zabha an alias of rv64id_zaamo_zabha: I am wondering whether this was intentional? Andrea
