On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:36 AM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 12/14/23 02:46, Christoph Müllner wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:34 AM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> > >> > >> A handful of the scalar crypto instructions are supposed to take a > >> constant integer argument 0..3 inclusive. A suitable constraint was > >> created and used for this purpose (D03), but the operand's predicate is > >> "register_operand". That's just wrong. > >> > >> This patch adds a new predicate "const_0_3_operand" and fixes the > >> relevant insns to use it. One could argue the constraint is redundant > >> now (and you'd be correct). I wouldn't lose sleep if someone wanted > >> that removed, in which case I'll spin up a V2. > >> > >> The testsuite was broken in a way that made it consistent with the > >> compiler, so the tests passed, when they really should have been issuing > >> errors all along. > >> > >> This patch adjusts the existing tests so that they all expect a > >> diagnostic on the invalid operand usage (including out of range > >> constants). It adds new tests with proper constants, testing the > >> extremes of valid values. > >> > >> OK for the trunk, or should we remove the D03 constraint? > > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Muellner <christoph.muell...@vrull.eu> > > > > The patch does not apply cleanly anymore, because there were some > > small changes in crypto.md. > Here's an update to that old patch that also takes care of the pattern > where we allow 0..10 inclusive, but not registers. > > Regression tested on rv64gc without new failures. It'll need a > ChangeLog when approved, but that's easy to adjust.
Looks good and tests pass for rv64gc and rv32gc. Reviewed-by: Christoph Muellner <christoph.muell...@vrull.eu> Tested-by: Christoph Muellner <christoph.muell...@vrull.eu>
