[RTGTest] Add store instructions #8118
Open
+71
−1
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Should we support labels as operands to store instructions? (and consequently also load instructions)
Assemblers typically only support them as replacements for both the immediate AND the base register. Otherwise, the label address needs to be small enough to fit in the immediate or the assembler inserts additional instructions to load the label in a register to compute the offset (I think most assemblers just error out here, e.g., GAS does). So
lw ra, datais fine butlw ra, data(zero)is not.Not supporting them would mean we must manually insert the additional instructions to move a label value into a register and add it to the base register. The front-end could provide a utility function for that. It wouldn't lead to performance-optimal binary but we don't care about runtime performance anyway.