fpallares added a comment.
Thanks for the update @HsiangKai.
I've noticed that we aren't handling the exceptions that state that the `V0`
constraint shouldn't be enforced for instructions that generate masks or for
reductions.
For instance the following (valid) instructions are rejected:
vmslt.vv v0, v2, v3, v0.t
vredsum.vs v0, v1, v2, v0.t
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/AsmParser/RISCVAsmParser.cpp:776
}
- return "";
+ llvm_unreachable("Unknown SEW.");
}
----------------
evandro wrote:
> I'd rather the first case be the `default` case and that it would call
> `llvm_unreachabe()` instead.
I believe the LLVM Coding Standards recommend against `default` labels in
switches over enums:
> -Wswitch warns if a switch, without a default label, over an enumeration does
> not cover every enumeration value. If you write a default label on a fully
> covered switch over an enumeration then the -Wswitch warning won’t fire when
> new elements are added to that enumeration.
See
https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#don-t-use-default-labels-in-fully-covered-switches-over-enumerations
.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80802/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80802
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
