[PATCH v4 02/12] bfd/RISC-V: Zve{32, 64}f don't need to explicitly imply Zvl{32,64}b

[Jan Beulich]

On 27.07.2026 03:40, Nelson Chu wrote:
> Yeah right, thanks.
> 
> (Not related to this patch)  To be honest, I’ve been debating whether
> this "table implies order" approach is actually a good thing.  While
> it significantly reduces the number of table entries, in practice,
> every time people add a new rule, they have to be extremely careful to
> ensure the order is correct.  Would it be better to define some macro
> to represent parts of the rules?

I don't think I see how a macro could help here. What I could see as
possibly helping would be to machine-generate this table from a simpler
(purely textual perhaps) representation where order doesn't matter.

Jan