[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 316] bperm TODO

[bugzilla-daemon@libre-soc.org]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316

--- Comment #50 from Michael Nolan <mtnolan2640@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Cole Poirier from comment #49) 
> I was planning on taking the proof luke
> provided yesterday, and trying to speed it up by using an Array() as he
> suggested instead of nested [i][j] for loops. Should I try connecting the
> module or making the proof modification first? And thank you again for your
> extreme generosity in offering to help, and in all the help you've given me
> so far :)

I'm not sure I would. To me, a proof should be as simple as possible to
understand, because you need to be able to check the proof against the
specification. The existing proof is clear enough to allow it to be checked
against the pseudocode, and doesn't take an inordinate amount of time, so I
think it's fine to leave it as is.

So yeah, I'd say try hooking it up to main_stage and adding a test for it would
be better than trying to "optimize" the proof. Especially since there's a bug
in the module that the proof hasn't revealed (hint: it has to do with power's
numbering of bits).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev