lowRISC / lowRISC/lowrisc-toolchains
LLVM Toolchain does not recognise `slo`,`sro` family of instructions
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Shell
- Stars
- 49
- Forks
- 22
- Avg merge
- 2d 5h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 2
Description
`slo`, `slow`, `sloi`, `sloiw`, `sro`, `srow`, `sroi`, `sroiw` are erroneously missing from the table of instructions in the extensions defined in the Bitmanip 0.93 spec, though they are present in the document and the Change History at the end shows they were moved to Zbp.
These are implemented by Ibex, and we currently use `.insn` instead of mnemonics to write the instructions in assembly: [Ibex ISA Test](https://github.com/lowRISC/opentitan/blob/2c2012c564c259cde4c8bd58e85d7a724288528b/sw/device/tests/rv_core_ibex_isa_test.S#L377-L380)
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Locate the LLVM instruction tables for the Bitmanip 0.93 extensions and compare them with the listed `slo`, `slow`, `sloi`, `sloiw`, `sro`, `srow`, `sroi`, and `sroiw` mnemonics. Review the referenced Ibex ISA test at `sw/device/tests/rv_core_ibex_isa_test.S` around lines 377-380, then verify that assembly can use the mnemonics instead of `.insn`.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- compilers
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 45/100