RFR: 8368897: RISC-V: Cleanup RV_EXT_FEATURE_FLAGS & RV_NON_EXT_FEATURE_FLAGS [v2]

[Hamlin Li]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 07:37:58 GMT, Fei Yang <fyang at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> I'm also considering if we should remove the column ext_xx in RV_EXT_FEATURE_FLAGS, and the similar column in RV_NON_EXT_FEATURE_FLAGS in this pr, as it should be able to be generated from the pretty string. How do you think about it?
>> 
>> The different opinions could be:
>> * for RV_EXT_FEATURE_FLAGS, should we take for example `i` or `I` as pretty string?
>> * for RV_NON_EXT_FEATURE_FLAGS, should we use `mvendorid` or `VendorId` as pretty string?
>> let me know how do you think about it.
>
>> I'm also considering if we should remove the column ext_xx in RV_EXT_FEATURE_FLAGS, and the similar column in RV_NON_EXT_FEATURE_FLAGS in this pr, as it should be able to be generated from the pretty string. How do you think about it?
>> 
>> The different opinions could be:
>> 
>> * for RV_EXT_FEATURE_FLAGS, should we take for example `i` or `I` as pretty string?
> 
> The current `_features_string` on linux-riscv64 looks like:
> 
> rv64 rvi rvm rva rvf rvd rvc rvv zicboz zba zbb zbs zfa zfh zfhmin zvfh zicond
> 
> 
> We append a `rv` prefix for `i`, `m`, `a`, `f`, `d`, `c` and `v`.
> 
>> * for RV_NON_EXT_FEATURE_FLAGS, should we use `mvendorid` or `VendorId` as pretty string?
>>   let me know how do you think about it.
> 
> Seems not necessary to have a pretty string for non-extension flags. Is it used anywhere?

@RealFYang Take your time, no hurry. :)

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27562#issuecomment-3355709993