Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added some V extension Pseudo-instructions #295

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Added some V extension Pseudo-instructions #295

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
c7c6877
Added some V extension Pseudo-instructions
AFOliveira Oct 7, 2024
766c468
Fixed wrong pseudo instruction definition
AFOliveira Oct 25, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
22 changes: 22 additions & 0 deletions rv_v
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -209,6 +209,12 @@ vfwnmacc.vv 31..26=0x3d vm vs2 vs1 14..12=0x1 vd 6..0=0x57
vfwmsac.vv 31..26=0x3e vm vs2 vs1 14..12=0x1 vd 6..0=0x57
vfwnmsac.vv 31..26=0x3f vm vs2 vs1 14..12=0x1 vd 6..0=0x57

#Pseudo OPFVV

$pseudo_op rv_v::vfsgnjn.vv vfneg.v 31..26=0x09 vm vs2=vs1 vs1 14..12=0x1 vd 6..0=0x57
AFOliveira marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
$pseudo_op rv_v::vmflt.vv vmfgt.vv 31..26=0x1b vm vs1 vs2 14..12=0x5 vd 6..0=0x57
$pseudo_op rv_v::vmfle.vv vmfge.vv 31..26=0x19 vm vs2 rs1 14..12=0x5 vd 6..0=0x57

# OPIVX
vadd.vx 31..26=0x00 vm vs2 rs1 14..12=0x4 vd 6..0=0x57
vsub.vx 31..26=0x02 vm vs2 rs1 14..12=0x4 vd 6..0=0x57
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -302,6 +308,13 @@ vnclip.wv 31..26=0x2f vm vs2 vs1 14..12=0x0 vd 6..0=0x57
vwredsumu.vs 31..26=0x30 vm vs2 vs1 14..12=0x0 vd 6..0=0x57
vwredsum.vs 31..26=0x31 vm vs2 vs1 14..12=0x0 vd 6..0=0x57

#Pseudo OPIVV

$pseudo_op rv_v::vmslt.vv vmsgt.vv 31..26=0x1b vm vs1 vs2 14..12=0x0 vd 6..0=0x57
$pseudo_op rv_v::vmsltu.vv vmsgtu.vv 31..26=0x1a vm vs1 vs2 14..12=0x0 vd 6..0=0x57
$pseudo_op rv_v::vmsle.vv vmsge.vv 31..26=0x1d vm vs1 vs2 14..12=0x0 vd 6..0=0x57
$pseudo_op rv_v::vmsleu.vv vmsgeu.vv 31..26=0x1c vm vs1 vs2 14..12=0x0 vd 6..0=0x57
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same concern as for the FP comparisons.


# OPIVI
vadd.vi 31..26=0x00 vm vs2 simm5 14..12=0x3 vd 6..0=0x57
vrsub.vi 31..26=0x03 vm vs2 simm5 14..12=0x3 vd 6..0=0x57
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -411,6 +424,13 @@ vwmaccu.vv 31..26=0x3c vm vs2 vs1 14..12=0x2 vd 6..0=0x57
vwmacc.vv 31..26=0x3d vm vs2 vs1 14..12=0x2 vd 6..0=0x57
vwmaccsu.vv 31..26=0x3f vm vs2 vs1 14..12=0x2 vd 6..0=0x57

#Pseudo-Instructions for Vector Integer Extension Instructions

$pseudo_op rv_v::vmxor.mm vmclr.m 31..26=0x1b 25=1 vs2=vd vs1=vd 14..12=0x2 vd 6..0=0x57
Copy link
Member

@aswaterman aswaterman Oct 7, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

More of a question than a comment: is there a reason for using vs2=vd rather than vs2=vs1 here? By transitivity, they're equivalent; I'm just curious if there should be a stylistic default and, if so, why.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is to ensure that the parsing assumes them as the same value. This is extremely useful when generating, per example, the yaml_dump since we can know what differs from the original instruction to the pseudo-instruction.

This can be parsed to ouput, per example, the following: https://github.com/riscv-software-src/riscv-unified-db/blob/00213d2b2703240dc4fbe90dcdd8749e5b5f7e35/arch/inst/B/add.uw.yaml#L25

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you missed my point. There are two equivalent ways of expressing this: we can say vs2=vd and vs1=vd, or we can say vs1=vd and vs2=vs1. The same information would be conveyed to parsing tools either way. I am just wondering why we are anchoring on vd.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I definitely missed it, but I believe the best way to go for it is to say that "original_field = other_field", since parsing wise this is more helpful

$pseudo_op rv_v::vmnand.mm vmnot.m 31..26=0x1d 25=1 vs2=vs1 vs1 14..12=0x2 vd 6..0=0x57
$pseudo_op rv_v::vmand.mm vmmv.m 31..26=0x19 25=1 vs2=vs1 vs1 14..12=0x2 vd 6..0=0x57
$pseudo_op rv_v::vmxnor.mm vmset.m 31..26=0x1f 25=1 vs2=vd vs1=vd 14..12=0x2 vd 6..0=0x57
AFOliveira marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

# OPMVX
vaaddu.vx 31..26=0x08 vm vs2 rs1 14..12=0x6 vd 6..0=0x57
vaadd.vx 31..26=0x09 vm vs2 rs1 14..12=0x6 vd 6..0=0x57
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -449,3 +469,5 @@ vwmaccu.vx 31..26=0x3c vm vs2 rs1 14..12=0x6 vd 6..0=0x57
vwmacc.vx 31..26=0x3d vm vs2 rs1 14..12=0x6 vd 6..0=0x57
vwmaccus.vx 31..26=0x3e vm vs2 rs1 14..12=0x6 vd 6..0=0x57
vwmaccsu.vx 31..26=0x3f vm vs2 rs1 14..12=0x6 vd 6..0=0x57

$pseudo_op rv_v::vfsgnjx.vv vfabs.v 31..26=0x0a vm vs2=vs1 vs1 14..12=0x1 vd 6..0=0x57
AFOliveira marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
Loading