kito-cheng added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVISelLowering.cpp:4683
+ Ops.push_back(VL);
+ Ops.push_back(DAG.getUNDEF(XLenVT)); // Policy
+ }
----------------
Is this operand for tail policy? if so why this is `UNDEF`? I guess this should
be `TAIL_AGNOSTIC` rather than `UNDEF`?
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVInstrInfoVPseudos.td:4673
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-defm PseudoVFCVT_XU_F : VPseudoVCVTI_V;
-defm PseudoVFCVT_X_F : VPseudoVCVTI_V;
+let mayRaiseFPException = true in {
defm PseudoVFCVT_RTZ_XU_F : VPseudoVCVTI_V;
----------------
I saw all other target using `0`/`1` rather than `true`/`false` including
`RISCVInstrInfoF.td`/`RISCVInstrInfoD.td`when setting mayRaiseFPException,
maybe we should keep it consistent?
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCVInstrInfoVPseudos.td:4673
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
-defm PseudoVFCVT_XU_F : VPseudoVCVTI_V;
-defm PseudoVFCVT_X_F : VPseudoVCVTI_V;
+let mayRaiseFPException = true in {
defm PseudoVFCVT_RTZ_XU_F : VPseudoVCVTI_V;
----------------
kito-cheng wrote:
> I saw all other target using `0`/`1` rather than `true`/`false` including
> `RISCVInstrInfoF.td`/`RISCVInstrInfoD.td`when setting mayRaiseFPException,
> maybe we should keep it consistent?
And I think we should also set `mayRaiseFPException` in `RISCVInstrInfoV.td`.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120449/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120449
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
