Re: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Disallow 64-bit indexed loads and stores for rv32gcv.

[钟居哲 <juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1441 bytes --]

>> I'm wondering whether the VLA modes in the iterator are correct.
>> Looks dubious to me but unsure, will need to create some tests
>> before continuing.

It must be correct. We already have test (intrinsic codes) for it.

>> What's the problem with those?  We probably won't reach there
>> because the indexed is considered invalid before but we could,
>> theoretically, still combine them?
Condition should be put into iterators (Add a new iterator for indexed load store).
Like you did on RAITO iterators adding !TARGET_64BIT.
It's easier to maintain since iterators codes only happence once.
Wheras this patch is adding GET_MODE_BITSIZE (GET_MODE_INNER (<VINDEX>mode)) <= GET_MODE_BITSIZE (Pmode)
in many places.


juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai
 
From: Robin Dapp
Date: 2023-11-17 22:55
To: 钟居哲; gcc-patches; palmer; kito.cheng; Jeff Law
CC: rdapp.gcc
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Disallow 64-bit indexed loads and stores for rv32gcv.
> OK. Make sense。
 
I'm wondering whether the VLA modes in the iterator are correct.
Looks dubious to me but unsure, will need to create some tests
before continuing.
 
> LGTM as long as you remove  all
> GET_MODE_BITSIZE (GET_MODE_INNER (<VINDEX>mode)) <= GET_MODE_BITSIZE (Pmode)
 
What's the problem with those?  We probably won't reach there
because the indexed is considered invalid before but we could,
theoretically, still combine them?
 
Regards
Robin