On 1/19/24 00:09, Kito Cheng wrote:
Thanks! generally LGTM, but I would wait one more week to see any
other comments :)Just a note. 113095 isn't marked as a regression, but it most
definitely is a regression. So this meets the stage4 criteria.
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 3:05 PM Monk Chiang <monk.chi...@sifive.com> wrote:
Since the match.pd transforms (zero_one == 0) ? y : z <op> y,
into ((typeof(y))zero_one * z) <op> y. Add splitters to recongize
this expression to generate SFB instructions.
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR target/113095
* config/riscv/sfb.md: New splitters to rewrite single bit
sign extension as the condition to SFB instructions.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/riscv/sfb.c: New test.
I would probably suggest seeing if these still work when the NE nodes do
not have a mode (ie, replace "ne:X" with just "ne". Our docs are a bit
unclear on that topic IIRC and it looks like the RISC-V backend is
inconsistent.
More importantly, this message doesn't indicate if/how this patch was
tested. Given it's conditional on SFB a bug here would be narrow, but
we should still be doing a regression test.
Jeff
