Skip to content

Conversation

@hansfbaier
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 3, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 46.05%. Comparing base (139625a) to head (ddf4603).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1266   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   46.05%   46.05%           
=======================================
  Files          11       11           
  Lines        4942     4942           
  Branches     1345     1345           
=======================================
  Hits         2276     2276           
  Misses       2666     2666           
Flag Coverage Δ
idlc 46.05% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@ThinkOpenly
Copy link
Collaborator

Shouldn't bge, blt, bne need the same?

It's disappointing there isn't a test which catches this already. riscv-tests doesn't test for this, apparently?

The CI tests are failing. If you would:

$ ./do chore:update_golden_appendix

Then, commit and push the resulting changes.

Copy link
Collaborator

@ThinkOpenly ThinkOpenly left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Comments made previously (please make same changes for other branch instructions, update golden reference). Thanks!

@hansfbaier
Copy link
Contributor Author

chore:update_golden_appendix

OK, added those mnemonics, which also had missing sign extensions and ran the chores.

@dhower-qc
Copy link
Collaborator

It's disappointing there isn't a test which catches this already. riscv-tests doesn't test for this, apparently?

riscv-tests does check for this; the sign-extend attribute does not have any effect on the ISS, though. Instead, the sign extension occurs in operation(). I haven't bothered to address this since it's going to be fixed up by the upcoming instruction schema change.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants