@@ -184,6 +184,7 @@ const RISCVIsaExtData isa_edata_arr[] = {
ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(zhinx, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_zhinx),
ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(zhinxmin, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_zhinxmin),
ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(shcounterenw, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, has_priv_1_12),
+ ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(shvstvala, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, has_priv_1_12),
ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smaia, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_smaia),
ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smcntrpmf, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_smcntrpmf),
ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smepmp, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_smepmp),
shvstvala is defined in RVA22 as: "vstval must be written in all cases described above for stval." By "cases describe above" the doc refer to the description of sstvala: "stval must be written with the faulting virtual address for load, store, and instruction page-fault, access-fault, and misaligned exceptions, and for breakpoint exceptions other than those caused by execution of the EBREAK or C.EBREAK instructions. For virtual-instruction and illegal-instruction exceptions, stval must be written with the faulting instruction." We already have sstvala, and our vstval follows the same rules as stval, so we can claim to support shvstvala too. Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarboza@ventanamicro.com> --- target/riscv/cpu.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)