On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 1:41 PM Jin Ma via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > The pattern mistakenly believes that fsflags can use immediate numbers, > but in fact it does not support it. Immediate numbers should use fsflagsi. > > For example: > __builtin_riscv_fsflags(4); > > The following error occurred. > /tmp/ccoWdWqT.s: Assembler messages: > /tmp/ccoWdWqT.s:14: Error: illegal operands `fsflags 4' > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * config/riscv/riscv.md: Likewise. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * gcc.target/riscv/fsflags.c: New test. > --- > gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md | 4 ++-- > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/fsflags.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/riscv/fsflags.c > > diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md > index 4615e811947..24515bcf706 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md > +++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md > @@ -3074,7 +3074,7 @@ (define_insn "riscv_frcsr" > "frcsr\t%0") > > (define_insn "riscv_fscsr" > - [(unspec_volatile [(match_operand:SI 0 "csr_operand" "rK")] UNSPECV_FSCSR)] > + [(unspec_volatile [(match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "r")] > UNSPECV_FSCSR)] > "TARGET_HARD_FLOAT || TARGET_ZFINX" > "fscsr\t%0")
Wait, this patch still drops K?
