User Details
- User Since
- Jul 14 2020, 5:33 AM (97 w, 3 d)
Yesterday
Thanks for refactoring it! I think it's fully NFC.
Tue, May 24
Mon, May 23
Sun, May 22
Sat, May 21
Fri, May 20
LGTM.
And I also worried that if the size of RVV padding is big enough, the size of the local scalar variable field is out of the range of 12 bits signed number. If it is necessary to add an extra scavenger spill slot for it?
Mon, May 16
Sat, Apr 30
Thu, Apr 28
- Replace std::string to StringRef
- Remove size value for SmallVector
Apr 23 2022
Thanks for confirming it! @kito-cheng
Use update_mir_test_checks.py to autogenerate check lines
Apr 22 2022
- rename test file to pr53662.mir
- reduce pr53662.mir test file
Apr 21 2022
Thanks for fixing it! @rogfer01
Apr 20 2022
Apr 19 2022
ChangeLog:
- Rewrite .ll test as MIR test
- Add '-run-pass=prologepilog' argument to test RUN line
- Add a CHECK line.
Apr 18 2022
ping
Apr 17 2022
Apr 16 2022
Apr 15 2022
Apr 13 2022
Apr 11 2022
Mar 31 2022
I will implement this for LLVM.
This patch makes sense to me and I think it is a correct fix.
In LLVM MC, the STI's feature bits is not mutable, it was determined by the command line before parsing the file. And to deal with directives like .option rvc, the Parser maintains an STI and replaces it with a new STI when the subtarget extensions were enabled or disabled. So we need to use MCAlignFragment's STI which is generated using the replaced STI by the parser. Is my understanding correct?
Mar 29 2022
Mar 28 2022
Address @MaskRay 's comments.
- explicit default-argument to avoid error-prone
- change riscv64 test to test the case when -mno-relax -mrelax specified.
Address @MaskRay 's comments
Yeah, the attributes were missing in this patch. I will update it.
I'm not even sure in what cases this matters. Flags is documented as being "used by the linker to disallow linking ELF files with incompatible ABIs together" but C and non-C are always compatible with each other, assuming the target does support C.
RISC-V psabi says "When linking objects which specify EF_RISCV_RVC, the linker is permitted to use RVC instructions such as C.JAL in the relaxation process".
To be clear, if no one else has any opinion about this I think I'd still be in favor of merging this, as we would match the GNU tools and I don't see much downside, but this seems like a weird and non-ideal corner case, whichever way we slice it.
I am still confused about when do we need the RVC flag ? For example, if we have both .option rvc and option norvc in an assembly file, should RVC flag be emitted ? Or if we use command line -mattr=+c to assemble file, but option norvc is specified in assembly file, should RVC flag be emitted ?
Mar 25 2022
@jrtc27, @kito-cheng Do you have any other comments ? :)
Grammatical fix
Mar 23 2022
Mar 22 2022
rebase and fix warning
Looks like a test is missing?
Mar 21 2022
Mar 17 2022
Ping. :)
Ping :)
Mar 15 2022
Address @khchen 's comments.
Mar 11 2022
Ping.
Mar 10 2022
ping.
Mar 9 2022
LGTM
Mar 8 2022
Address @kito-cheng 's comments
Mar 7 2022
fix
remove the content in patch D121073
undo
[RISCV] Generate correct ELF EFlags when .ll file has target-abi attribute
Mar 6 2022
Mar 1 2022
add test file
Feb 28 2022
Feb 27 2022
Address @jrtc27 's comments
fix typo
Address @fourdim 's comments
Feb 24 2022
Feb 22 2022
mask off the upper 2 bits of the value at the address and truncate the Value
Feb 17 2022
Feb 16 2022
Feb 6 2022
clang-format and rebase