Yeah, no further comment from me :)
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:16 AM Li, Pan2 <pan2...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks kito. It makes sense, should not reach default, may I prepare v3(add
> gcc_unreachable to default) if no more comments?
>
> Pan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kito Cheng <kito.ch...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:12 AM
> To: Li, Pan2 <pan2...@intel.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; jeffreya...@gmail.com;
> Wang, Yanzhang <yanzhang.w...@intel.com>; Kito Cheng <kito.ch...@sifive.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] RISC-V: Refactor RVV frm_mode attr for rounding mode
> intrinsic
>
> > +/* Get the frm mode with given CONST_INT rtx, the default mode is
> > + FRM_DYN. */
> > +enum floating_point_rounding_mode
> > +get_frm_mode (rtx operand)
> > +{
> > + gcc_assert (CONST_INT_P (operand));
> > +
> > + switch (INTVAL (operand))
> > + {
> > + case FRM_RNE:
> > + return FRM_RNE;
> > + case FRM_RTZ:
> > + return FRM_RTZ;
> > + case FRM_RDN:
> > + return FRM_RDN;
> > + case FRM_RUP:
> > + return FRM_RUP;
> > + case FRM_RMM:
> > + return FRM_RMM;
> > + case FRM_DYN:
> > + return FRM_DYN;
> > + default:
> > + return FRM_DYN;
>
> Should we put a gcc_unreachable or gcc_assert here? I am not sure if
> another value is valid when it appeared for this operand?
>
> > + }
> > +
> > + gcc_unreachable ();
> > +}
