-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 678
Fix various typos #2290
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
Fix various typos #2290
Conversation
|
Revert "practiced" -> "practised" change that turned out to be American spelling |
|
Note that "implementors" -> "implementers" is not much of a fix, but as there were instances of both spellings I thought that bringing consistency was desirable. I went with "...ers" because it appears to be the more common spelling. |
|
Removed another mistaken "correction" of American spelling |
|
|
||
| // Re-define gen_test_done() to override the base-class with an empty implementation. | ||
| // Then, our own overrided gen_program() can append new test_done code. | ||
| // Then, our own override gen_program() can append new test_done code. |
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 don't think "override" is correct here. "override" is a verb or noun, of which neither really make sense here, since we are using it as an adjective. "overrided" is not a word but could be considered semantically as either "overridden" or "overriding". I would suggest "overriding" is the correct choice here based on context.
|
|
||
| // Create the ebreak insn which will cause us to enter debug mode, and run the | ||
| // special code in the debugrom. | ||
| // special code in the debug ROM. |
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.
This change is fine, but based on the context of 352f83f it might be more appropriate as "debug_rom" for consistency?
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.
Hmm, I think "debug ROM" is better for comments and documentation referring to the ROM itself and not a debug_rom class. This approach can already be found here:
ibex/dv/uvm/core_ibex/riscv_dv_extension/ibex_debug_triggers_overrides.sv
Lines 113 to 121 in f0d408a
| virtual function void gen_debug_rom(int hart); | |
| `uvm_info(`gfn, "Creating debug ROM", UVM_LOW) | |
| debug_rom = ibex_hardware_triggers_debug_rom_gen:: | |
| type_id::create("debug_rom", , {"uvm_test_top", ".", `gfn}); | |
| debug_rom.cfg = cfg; | |
| debug_rom.hart = hart; | |
| debug_rom.gen_program(); | |
| instr_stream = {instr_stream, debug_rom.instr_stream}; | |
| endfunction |
Is there a particular reason you prefer "debug_rom" here?
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.
Just for consistency, but I hold no strong opinion either way. I think what you've said sounds fine.
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.
Alright, I'll keep the current change, if you have no strong opinion
rtl/ibex_alu.sv
Outdated
| // of a, n = 8,16, or 32 for .b, .h, .w -variants. {a, b} denotes bit concatenation. | ||
| // | ||
| // Using barret reduction, one can show that | ||
| // Using Barret reduction, one can show that |
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.
| // Using Barret reduction, one can show that | |
| // Using Barrett reduction, one can show that |
rtl/ibex_if_stage.sv
Outdated
|
|
||
| // Do not check for sequential increase after a branch, jump, exception, interrupt or debug | ||
| // request, all of which will set branch_req. Also do not check after reset or for dummys. | ||
| // request, all of which will set branch_req. Also do not check after reset or for dummies. |
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.
Nit: my personal preference would be to pluralize precisely as "dummy instructions", not "dummies".
AlexJones0
left a comment
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.
Thanks for looking into this, @elliotb-lowrisc!
Attempt at neutral correction of what I hope are universal seen as spelling and capitalisation errors in some documentation and code comments.
Please flag any accidental changes to something that was already correctly spelt. My spell-checker is set to British, not American English, so there's a chance I accidentally "fixed" a spelling I didn't recognise as being the American variant.