Add more extension as described in Issue #4

[jriyyya]

This PR aims to continue the remaining work from commit 7c1eae7 of issue #4 converting all uses of haveZdinx(), haveZhinx(), haveZfinx() to extension("Zdinx"), extension("Zhinx"), extension("Zfinx") respectively to facilitate parsing.

[ThinkOpenly]

Thanks, @jriyyya! The code looks fine to me. It compiles and produces the same output as before, as expected. You've marked this PR as "draft", so I will hold off merging it for now.

Really minor comments:

• The commit subject lines are similar, but do differ in whether they include "function extension" or "extension function".
• You use "function extension" and "haveZinx()" in the subjects. Both are functions, so I'd prefer seeing the same convention for both. Perhaps "Utilize extension() instead of haveZinx()".
• If you wanted to make sure future observers understood what you were doing and why, you could add a body to the commit message with explanation. Even something simple like "Continue the remaining work from commit 7c1eae7 in converting all uses of have<extension-name>() to extension("<extension-name") to facilitate parsing." or something like that.

With or without any of those suggestions implemented (as I said it's fine as-is), remove the "draft" marking when you are ready for me to merge this!

[jriyyya]

Thanks for the Review. I was actually planning to continue this PR and further add extension function for D and F. We can also open another PR for the same, So removing the draft here.

Sorry about the commit message. Should Squash these three commits into to a single commit as "Utilize extension() instead of haveZdinx(), haveZfinx(), haveZhinx" ?

I thought of adding a description when I would have removed the draft tag, I have added it now. I will keep in mind to add it beforehand next time 😅.

[ThinkOpenly]

grepping through the code, I see a need to make similar changes for haveSupMode, haveUsrMode, haveNExt, haveZmmul, and haveZkr (at least).

(A good test might be to comment out all of the have* functions in model/riscv_sys_regs.sail, and see what errors are produced when building. I have not done this.)

For now, what you have posted is great. I'll merge this, and you can continue with those, at your option, when you are able. Thanks, again!

[jriyyya]

(A good test might be to comment out all of the have* functions in model/riscv_sys_regs.sail, and see what errors are produced when building. I have not done this.)

Quite a nice idea, I will give it a try!