[PATCH] D92254: [VE] Clean check routines of branch types

[Simon Moll via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

simoll added a comment.

A helpful comment could explain why these instructions should not be used. Nits, else LGTM.



================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/VE/VEInstrInfo.cpp:97
+// For example, br.l.t and br.l.  We don't use branch relative word/double/
+// float alwasy isntructions.
 static bool isUncondBranchOpcode(int Opc) {
----------------
typo alwasy


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/VE/VEInstrInfo.cpp:102
+#define BRKIND(NAME) (Opc == NAME##a || Opc == NAME##a_nt || Opc == NAME##a_t)
+  assert(!BRKIND(BRCFW) && !BRKIND(BRCFD) && !BRKIND(BRCFS) &&
+         "Branch relative word/double/float always instructions should not be "
----------------
I am lacking context here but is this really the right place for this assertion? Does "should not be used" mean that these instructions are invalid/incorrect or are they just not recommendable/inefficient?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D92254/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D92254