Hi Juzhe,
thanks, the somewhat unified modulo is IMHO a more readable.
Could probably still be improved but OK with me for now.
> + if (is_dummy_len)
> + {
> + rtx dummy_len = gen_reg_rtx (Pmode);
Can we call this is_vlmax_len/is_vlmax and vlmax_len or so?
> + if (inner_offsize < inner_vsize)
> + {
> + /* 7.2. Vector Load/Store Addressing Modes.
> + If the vector offset elements are narrower than XLEN, they are
> + zero-extended to XLEN before adding to the ptr effective address. If
> + the vector offset elements are wider than XLEN, the least-significant
> + XLEN bits are used in the address calculation. An implementation must
> + raise an illegal instruction exception if the EEW is not supported for
> + offset elements. */
> + if (!zero_extend_p || (zero_extend_p && scale_log2 != 0))
Hehe I really thought we have a widening shift, well ;)
I see, the zero extension refers to this part of the GCC docs
"multiply the extended offset by operand 4;"
and not to the RVV spec. You could clarify this then, saying
that the RVV spec only refers to the scale_log == 0 case.
The rest LGTM now, no separate revision needed for those nits.
Regards
Robin
