On 6/16/26 07:51, Peter Maydell wrote:
Do you think it's worth updating our feature function names to match the official architecture names, or shall we just leave it be?
My first thought was that this might have been a combo feature test, requiring both sve2 and aes -- I've done that elsewhere with e.g. isar_feature_aa64_sve2_f8mm8. But since that isn't the case here, it might be worth making the function match the (newer?) feature name.
r~
