t; >
> > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> >
> > From: Jin Ma
> > Date: 2023-07-26 11:33
> > To: gcc-patches; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> > CC: jeffreyalaw; palmer; richard.sandiford; kito.cheng; philipp.tomsich;
> > christoph.muellner; Robin Dapp; jinma.contrib
> >
int. Why still make
> predicate allow immediate?
>
>
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> From: Jin Ma
> Date: 2023-07-26 11:33
> To: gcc-patches; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> CC: jeffreyalaw; palmer; richard.sandiford; kito.cheng; philipp.tomsich;
> ch
y still make
> predicate allow immediate?
>
>
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> From: Jin Ma
> Date: 2023-07-26 11:33
> To: gcc-patches; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> CC: jeffreyalaw; palmer; richard.sandiford; kito.cheng; philipp.tomsich;
> christoph.muellner; Robin Da
pp.tomsich;
christoph.muellner; Robin Dapp; jinma.contrib
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] RISC-V: Fixbug for fsflags instruction error using
immediate.
> - [(unspec_volatile [(match_operand:SI 0 "csr_operand" "rK")] UNSPECV_FSCSR)]
> + [(unspec_volatile [(match_operand:SI 0 "
> - [(unspec_volatile [(match_operand:SI 0 "csr_operand" "rK")] UNSPECV_FSCSR)]
> + [(unspec_volatile [(match_operand:SI 0 "csr_operand" "r")] UNSPECV_FSCSR)]
>
> If you don't allow immediate value in range 0 ~ 31, it should be
> "register_operand" instead of "csr_operand".
>
>
I think
instead of "csr_operand".
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Jin Ma
Date: 2023-07-26 10:17
To: gcc-patches
CC: jeffreyalaw; palmer; richard.sandiford; kito.cheng; philipp.tomsich;
christoph.muellner; rdapp.gcc; juzhe.zhong; jinma.contrib; Jin Ma
Subject: [PATCH v3] RISC-V: Fixbug for fsflag
The pattern mistakenly believes that fsflags can use immediate numbers,
but in fact it does not support it. Immediate numbers should use fsflagsi.
For example:
__builtin_riscv_fsflags(4);
The following error occurred.
/tmp/ccoWdWqT.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/ccoWdWqT.s:14: Error: illegal
