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.
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.
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.
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
Is there a particular reason you prefer "debug_rom" here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
Alright, I'll keep the current change, if you have no strong opinion
| // 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.
| // Using Barret reduction, one can show that | |
| // Using Barrett reduction, one can show that |
|
|
||
| // 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.
Nit: my personal preference would be to pluralize precisely as "dummy instructions", not "dummies".
AlexJones0
left a comment
AlexJones0
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for looking into this, @elliotb-lowrisc!
2 participants
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.