rjmccall added a comment.
The CodeGen change looks fine. I'm surprised you didn't need any code in
argument/parameter/call/return emission to do the actual fixed<->scalable
coercion; do we already have that for other reasons?
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td:2332
+
+ #if __RISCV_RVV_VLEN_BITS==512
+ typedef vint8m1_t fixed_vint8m1_t
__attribute__((riscv_rvv_vector_bits(512)));
----------------
This probably needs a `defined(__RISCV_RVV_VLEN_BITS)` clause, right? Because
the compiler doesn't actually define this macro unless `-mrvv-vector-bits` is
given.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td:2337
+Creates a type ``fixed_vint8m1_t_t`` that is a fixed-length variant of
+``vint8m1_t`` that contains exactly 512-bits. Unlike ``vint8m1_t``, this type
+can be used in globals, structs, unions, and arrays, all of which are
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td:2345
+is enabled under the ``-mrvv-vector-bits`` flag. ``__RISCV_RVV_VLEN_BITS`` can
+only be a power of 2 between 64 and 65536.
+
----------------
This doesn't describe the actual behavior of the compiler, which is that it's
*ill-formed* to use this attribute except when providing the same value to
`-mrvv-vector-bits`.
Also, this feels like an awkward attempt to also document the
`__RISCV_RVV_VLEN_BITS` macro, which probably ought to be primarily documented
in the command line argument reference for `-mrvv-vector-bits`.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td:2347
+
+Only `*m1_t`(LMUL=1) types are supported at this time.
+}];
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Targets/RISCV.cpp:207
+ Builder.defineMacro("__RISCV_RVV_VLEN_BITS",
+ Twine(VScale->first * llvm::RISCV::RVVBitsPerBlock));
}
----------------
Is this macro name coming from somewhere specifically? Because it doesn't
match the normal scheme for RISC-V target macros, which are all lowercase, and
it doesn't match the name of the command line argument it reflects.
Also, why is the computation of this thing so complicated when the command-line
argument is basically a single number?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D145088/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D145088
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
