Modify coding style to improve CC #1642
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Alae-Eddine Ez-Zejjari <[email protected]>
|
✔️ successful run, report available here. |
|
✔️ successful run, report available here. |
|
❌ failed run, report available here. |
|
✔️ successful run, report available here. |
|
✔️ successful run, report available here. |
3 similar comments
|
✔️ successful run, report available here. |
|
✔️ successful run, report available here. |
|
✔️ successful run, report available here. |
|
✔️ successful run, report available here. |
|
✔️ successful run, report available here. |
|
✔️ successful run, report available here. |
1 similar comment
|
✔️ successful run, report available here. |
|
Well done @AEzzejjari !! |
| @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ module commit_stage | |||
| we_gpr_o[0] = 1'b1; | |||
| end | |||
| // check whether the instruction we retire was a store | |||
| if (commit_instr_i[0].fu == STORE && !instr_0_is_amo) begin | |||
| if ((!CVA6Cfg.RVA && commit_instr_i[0].fu == STORE) || (CVA6Cfg.RVA && commit_instr_i[0].fu == STORE && !instr_0_is_amo)) begin | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have you considered the following simpler expression?
if (commit_instr_i[0].fu == STORE && !(CVA6Cfg.RVA && instr_0_is_amo)) begin(Sorry I’m really late, I fell on this while I was rebasing something else ^^’)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could it be as below?
if (areq_i.fetch_valid && (!dreq_i.spec || !(CVA6Cfg.NonIdemPotenceEn && addr_ni))) begin
// or even
if (areq_i.fetch_valid && !(CVA6Cfg.NonIdemPotenceEn && dreq_i.spec && addr_ni)) beginWas there any CC issues with such expressions or can we use them instead?
Modify coding style to improve Code Coverage