If you happen to have a test case, please, consider adding it.

LGTM

LGTM

Address @HsiangKai's comments.

LGTM

RV32 tests are also needed, please.

LGTM, but, please, see if any of the lint notices can be addressed before committing.

The default should be ta and mu. The compiler is usually agnostic about the tail of the vector, but usually assumes that masked elements are preserved.

In D92228#2424007, @rogfer01 wrote:

One of the suggestions made in that thread is teaching RA new tricks, which I don't feel qualified to do :) (I envision that if RA were able to dynamically limit the valid registers, as it assigns registers to operands, by virtue of some target-specific constraints, then, perhaps, this would be doable. But tbh I have no idea such approach is even feasible in the current RA. If we could do that we could also solve the case where v0 can't be used as the destination of masked instructions).

The other suggestion is to amend the instructions after RA in a specific pass. Seems doable at first but I am afraid this is going to be testing hell just to make sure no instruction manages to escape from that pass incorrectly.

Supporting old names without change of function is sensible, but, in this case, the bit fields in satp are different from stpbr. Then, the sensible result should be an error, because the code does need to be ported to the new version of the spec.

This is a wider discussion, but I would favor following the ratified specs, with exceptions on specific cases. I would also favor that the toolchain would enforce compliance on its own, even if more currently than an official, yet non compliant, compliance test suite.

Note: this patch maintains backwards compatibility with a preliminary spec.

I agree with @jrtc27. What's the motivation to support a register name obsoleted by a ratified spec?

It LGTM, but it's better to wait a couple of days before committing in order to give others time to comment.

LGTM

In D87873#2284396, @HsiangKai wrote:

Why not delete RISCVSchedRocket32.td?

In D85366#2211716, @jrtc27 wrote:

In D85366#2211651, @evandro wrote:

hasSideEffects may imply isNotDuplicable, especially when rematerializing, but the latter prevents duplication more extensively in the middle end (e.g., tail end duplication).

But why does that matter? If LLVM decides it's better to fork a code path then let it, whether it's a CSR instruction or not really does not matter, it's just I-cache usage. In fact that's another reason why I _wouldn't_ want this change to go through.

hasSideEffects may imply isNotDuplicable, especially when rematerializing, but the latter prevents duplication more extensively in the middle end (e.g., tail end duplication).
Indeed, isReMaterializable (default to false) applies here too.

I'm not familiar with the AMDGPU target, but the changes in these new tests seem harmless, except in CodeGen/AMDGPU/stack-realign.ll, where an instruction disappeared. Again, I'd defer to someone who works in this backend, perhaps @arsenm, to chime in.

Other than that, it seems sensible.

The AMDGPU test change likely means nothing, but it'd be good if someone who maintains or work that target would ok it. I suggest giving it another week or so. Otherwise, it LGTM.

Just a couple of nits, but otherwise it LGTM.

It LGTM after D80802.

It LGTM, but it's better to wait for an OK from a couple or so of other reviewers to chime in.

Again, the clang part should be split in another patch and be made a child of D81188.

It looks pretty GTM. At this point, I'd be fine with accepting this patch as the major issues seem to have already been addressed. Should there be any other minor issue, it could be addressed later.

In D78129#2023772, @joelkevinjones wrote:

list<Predicate> UnsupportedFeatures = !listconcat(SVEUnsupported.F, PAUnsupported.F);

In D79409#2023674, @foad wrote:

No, the sign of log2(x) depends on whether x is less or greater than 1, not less or greater than 2.

pow(x, -∞) → ∞ if |x| < 1 or 0 if |x| > 1
pow(x, +∞) → 0 if |x| < 1 or ∞ if |x| > 1
exp2(log2(x) * -∞) → exp2(±∞) → ∞ if x < 2 or 0 if x > 2
exp2(log2(x) * +∞) → exp2(±∞) → 0 if x < 2 or ∞ if x > 2