Add Zawrs extension tests

[ved-rivos]

Description

Add Zawrs extension test.

Related Issues

NA

Ratified/Unratified Extensions

• Ratified
• Unratified

List Extensions

https://github.com/riscv/riscv-zawrs

Reference Model Used

• SAIL
• Spike
• Other - < SPECIFY HERE >

Mandatory Checklist:

• All tests are compliant with the test-format spec present in this repo ?
• Ran the new tests on RISCOF with SAIL/Spike as reference model successfully ?
• Ran the new tests on RISCOF in coverage mode
• Link to Google-Drive folder containing the new coverage reports (See this for more info): < SPECIFY HERE >
• Link to PR in RISCV-ISAC from which the reports were generated : < SPECIFY HERE >
• Changelog entry created with a minor patch

Optional Checklist:

• RISCV-V CTG PR link if tests were generated using it : < SPECIFY HERE >
• Were the tests hand-written/modified ?
• Have you run these on any hard DUT model ? Please specify name and provide link if possible in the description
• If you have modified arch_test.h Please provide a detailed description of the changes in the Description section above.

[allenjbaum]

I would add a bit more coverage to ensure this is doing the right thing, e.g. read the INSTRET CSR before and after and see that it incremented by the proper amount.
You could be tricky and, in the timeout cases, check mtime or cycles and see that they at least incremented (the timeout should be provided to the test in terms of cycles (probably) and the test should check that it incremented by more than one, for example.

[Silabs-ArjanB]

You could be tricky and, in the timeout cases, check mtime or cycles and see that they at least incremented (the timeout should be provided to the test in terms of cycles (probably) and the test should check that it incremented by more than one, for example.

The Zawrs specifies its wrs.sto referring to an implementation-define short timeout. You cannot assume that cycles is incrementing during that timeout (it might for example be clock gated as is allowed for WFI implementations) and also mtime might not increase.

[ved-rivos]

That is right. Adding such checks to the ACT will go beyond what architecture compatibility requires.

[allenjbaum]

Well, not really. We expect DUT to provide a number in terms of instructions retired or cycles or mtime, guaranteed to be larger than the timeout, and we can check that no interrupt has occurred when we inject an interrupt after that time. The test pass criteria is a function of that number that is provided to the test, but that condition is true for a lot of tests with implementation defined parameters.

…

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 5:47 AM Ved Shanbhogue ***@***.***> wrote: That is right. Adding such checks to the ACT will go beyond what architecture compatibility requires. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#432 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHPXVJQSPAOXBPSDUCMD4QLYQ6R6HAVCNFSM6AAAAABCORU5V2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMJUG4ZDSMJWHA> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>