Is the following expected? Seems "vd is any" also has the same issue. Nelson diff --git a/gas/config/tc-riscv.c b/gas/config/tc-riscv.c index 959cbbc32a5..e49b34fd524 100644 --- a/gas/config/tc-riscv.c +++ b/gas/config/tc-riscv.c @@ -1966,13 +1966,13 @@ vector_macro (struct riscv_cl_insn *ip) /* Masked. Have vtemp to avoid overlap constraints. */ if (vd == vm) { - macro_build (NULL, "vmslt.vx", "Vd,Vt,s", vtemp, vs2, vs1); + macro_build (NULL, "vmslt.vx", "Vd,Vt,sVm", vtemp, vs2, vs1, -1); macro_build (NULL, "vmandnot.mm", "Vd,Vt,Vs", vd, vm, vtemp); } else { /* Preserve the value of vd if not updating by vm. */ - macro_build (NULL, "vmslt.vx", "Vd,Vt,s", vtemp, vs2, vs1); + macro_build (NULL, "vmslt.vx", "Vd,Vt,sVm", vtemp, vs2, vs1, -1); macro_build (NULL, "vmandnot.mm", "Vd,Vt,Vs", vtemp, vm, vtemp); macro_build (NULL, "vmandnot.mm", "Vd,Vt,Vs", vd, vd, vm); macro_build (NULL, "vmor.mm", "Vd,Vt,Vs", vd, vtemp, vd); @@ -2001,13 +2001,13 @@ vector_macro (struct riscv_cl_insn *ip) /* Masked. Have vtemp to avoid overlap constraints. */ if (vd == vm) { - macro_build (NULL, "vmsltu.vx", "Vd,Vt,s", vtemp, vs2, vs1); + macro_build (NULL, "vmsltu.vx", "Vd,Vt,sVm", vtemp, vs2, vs1, -1); macro_build (NULL, "vmandnot.mm", "Vd,Vt,Vs", vd, vm, vtemp); } else { /* Preserve the value of vd if not updating by vm. */ - macro_build (NULL, "vmsltu.vx", "Vd,Vt,s", vtemp, vs2, vs1); + macro_build (NULL, "vmsltu.vx", "Vd,Vt,sVm", vtemp, vs2, vs1, -1); macro_build (NULL, "vmandnot.mm", "Vd,Vt,Vs", vtemp, vm, vtemp); macro_build (NULL, "vmandnot.mm", "Vd,Vt,Vs", vd, vd, vm); macro_build (NULL, "vmor.mm", "Vd,Vt,Vs", vd, vtemp, vd); diff --git a/gas/testsuite/gas/riscv/vector-insns-vmsgtvx.d b/gas/testsuite/gas/riscv/vector-insns-vmsgtvx.d index dcc951a3cbf..aa633e357c9 100644 --- a/gas/testsuite/gas/riscv/vector-insns-vmsgtvx.d +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/riscv/vector-insns-vmsgtvx.d @@ -11,9 +11,9 @@ Disassembly of section .text: [ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+76422257[ ]+vmnot.m[ ]+v4,v4 [ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+6cc64457[ ]+vmslt.vx[ ]+v8,v12,a2,v0.t [ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+6e802457[ ]+vmxor.mm[ ]+v8,v8,v0 -[ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+6c85c657[ ]+vmslt.vx[ ]+v12,v8,a1,v0.t +[ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+6e85c657[ ]+vmslt.vx[ ]+v12,v8,a1 [ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+62062057[ ]+vmandn.mm[ ]+v0,v0,v12 -[ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+6c85c657[ ]+vmslt.vx[ ]+v12,v8,a1,v0.t +[ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+6e85c657[ ]+vmslt.vx[ ]+v12,v8,a1 [ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+62062657[ ]+vmandn.mm[ ]+v12,v0,v12 [ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+62402257[ ]+vmandn.mm[ ]+v4,v4,v0 [ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+6ac22257[ ]+vmor.mm[ ]+v4,v12,v4 @@ -21,9 +21,9 @@ Disassembly of section .text: [ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+76422257[ ]+vmnot.m[ ]+v4,v4 [ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+68c64457[ ]+vmsltu.vx[ ]+v8,v12,a2,v0.t [ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+6e802457[ ]+vmxor.mm[ ]+v8,v8,v0 -[ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+6885c657[ ]+vmsltu.vx[ ]+v12,v8,a1,v0.t +[ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+6a85c657[ ]+vmsltu.vx[ ]+v12,v8,a1 [ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+62062057[ ]+vmandn.mm[ ]+v0,v0,v12 -[ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+6885c657[ ]+vmsltu.vx[ ]+v12,v8,a1,v0.t +[ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+6a85c657[ ]+vmsltu.vx[ ]+v12,v8,a1 [ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+62062657[ ]+vmandn.mm[ ]+v12,v0,v12 [ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+62402257[ ]+vmandn.mm[ ]+v4,v4,v0 [ ]+[0-9a-f]+:[ ]+6ac22257[ ]+vmor.mm[ ]+v4,v12,v4 On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 3:43 PM Jan Beulich wrote: > On 29.08.2023 08:52, im Kiva via Binutils wrote: > > Hi maintainers, > > > > I discovered that GNU Assembler (as) lowers `vmsge.vx` and `vmsgeu.vx` > (pseudo > > instructions from RISC-V Vector Extension [1]) when the destination > > register is v0 as follows: > > > > vmsge{u}.vx v0, v4, a0, v0.t, v2 > > > > will be expanded to: > > > > vmslt{u}.vx v2, v4, a0, v0.t > > vmandn.mm v0, v0, v2 > > > > You can inspect the lowering result with Godbolt [2]. > > However, according to the Vector specification [1] page 52. The > "desugared" > > `vmslt{u}.vx` is not masked: > > > >> masked va >= x, vd == v0 > >> pseudoinstruction: vmsge{u}.vx vd, va, x, v0.t, vt > >> expansion: vmslt{u}.vx vt, va, x; vmandn.mm vd, vd, vt > > > > So the spec-expected result of the example above should be: > > vmslt{u}.vx v2, v4, a0 <-- no v0.t here > > vmandn.mm v0, v0, v2 > > > > I thus submitted a patch to the LLVM [3], and it was accepted recently. > > > > I am wondering if binutils considers it a bug, or if it is just > intentional > > because of some historical and compatibility reasons. > > I think this wants fixing alike in binutils: From looking at > vector_macro(), > it appears that emitting the masked form is merely an accident resulting > from the inverted encoding of "masking". In particular, if masking was > indeed meant, I expect code there would be > > if (vd == vm) > { > macro_build (NULL, "vmslt.vx", "Vd,Vt,sVm", vtemp, > vs2, vs1, vm); > macro_build (NULL, "vmandnot.mm", "Vd,Vt,Vs", vd, > vm, vtemp); > } > else > ... > > much like it is a few lines down from there. (Apparently the "else" path > omitted above is similarly affected.) > > Jan >