add clarification

[libreriscv.git] / simple_v_extension.mdwn

diff --git a/simple_v_extension.mdwn b/simple_v_extension.mdwn
index 423f49fead1def110e988aef5aa2a511e8ead7fc..4cf0937edde233618bbd012a4a8ad571c9acd473 100644 (file)
--- a/simple_v_extension.mdwn
+++ b/simple_v_extension.mdwn
@@ -1,14 +1,5 @@
 # Variable-width Variable-packed SIMD / Simple-V / Parallelism Extension Proposal
 
-* TODO 23may2018: CSR-CAM-ify regfile tables
-* TODO 23may2018: zero-mark predication CSR
-* TODO 28may2018: sort out VSETVL: CSR length to be removed?
-* TODO 09jun2018: Chennai Presentation more up-to-date
-* TODO 09jun2019: elwidth only 4 values (dflt, dflt/2, 8, 16)
-* TODO 09jun2019: extra register banks (future option)
-* TODO 09jun2019: new Reg CSR table (incl. packed=Y/N)
-
-
 Key insight: Simple-V is intended as an abstraction layer to provide
 a consistent "API" to parallelisation of existing *and future* operations.
 *Actual* internal hardware-level parallelism is *not* required, such
@@ -18,8 +9,8 @@ instruction queue (FIFO), pending execution.
 
 *Actual* parallelism, if added independently of Simple-V in the form
 of Out-of-order restructuring (including parallel ALU lanes) or VLIW
-implementations, or SIMD, or anything else, would then benefit *if*
-Simple-V was added on top.
+implementations, or SIMD, or anything else, would then benefit from
+the uniformity of a consistent API.
 
 [[!toc ]]
 
@@ -1068,7 +1059,7 @@ Similar rules apply to the destination register.
 * Throw an exception.  Whether that actually results in spawning threads
   as part of the trap-handling remains to be seen.
 
-# Under consideration
+# Under consideration <a name="issues"></a>
 
 From the Chennai 2018 slides the following issues were raised.
 Efforts to analyse and answer these questions are below.