> So I guess you should change `fscsr` to `fscsr%i0` instead of dropping
> K from the constraint list?
>
Sorry, you are right. I thought you were talking about fsflags,
but I didn't notice it was fscsr. I'll correct it right away.
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 11:42 AM juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> <juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand:
> > (define_insn "riscv_fscsr"
> > - [(unspec_volatile [(match_operand:SI 0 "csr_operand" "rK")]
> > UNSPECV_FSCSR)]
> > + [(unspec_volatile [(match_operand:SI 0 "csr_operand" "r")]
> > UNSPECV_FSCSR)]
> > "TARGET_HARD_FLOAT || TARGET_ZFINX"
> > "fscsr\t%0")
> >
> > This pattern never allows immediate in the constraint. 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;
> > 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 "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 directives that support the immediate pattern might be better, on
> > the one
> > hand fsflagsi are supported in the manual, on the other hand fsflagsi can be
> > slightly faster than fsflags.
> >
> > Regards
> > Jin
> >
> > >
> > > juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> > >
