Robin Dapp <[email protected]> writes:
>> Sorry, only realised later, but: if the precision can cover fewer
>> bytes than the bitsize, I suppose there ought to be some zero-byte
>> padding at the end as well.
> It looks like this problem, and also the padding, has been discussed
> before when the precision of VNx1BI etc. was first adjusted in the
> RISC-V backend?
Very probably. Can't remember now.
> I didn't immediately get the padding, though. So if we e.g. have a
> VNx2BI constant {0, 1} what would we pad the resulting value "2" to?
> A full byte?
Yeah, that part is OK, and was the case I was thinking about when
I said OK yesterday. But now that we allow BITSIZE != PRECISION,
it's possible for BITSIZE - PRECISION to be more than a full byte,
in which case the new loop would not initialise every byte of
the mode.
I vaguely remembered that that could happen for RVV_FIXED_VLMAX,
but perhaps I misremember. If it can't happen then an assert
would be OK instead.
Thanks,
Richard
