[llvm] [RISCV] Remove SEW operand for load/store and SEW-aware pseudos (PR #90396)

[Michael Maitland via llvm-commits]

================
@@ -171,14 +180,29 @@ static inline bool hasRoundModeOp(uint64_t TSFlags) {
 /// \returns true if this instruction uses vxrm
 static inline bool usesVXRM(uint64_t TSFlags) { return TSFlags & UsesVXRMMask; }
 
+/// \returns true if this instruction has implicit SEW value.
+static inline bool hasImplicitSEW(uint64_t TSFlags) {
+  return TSFlags & HasImplictSEWMask;
+}
+
+/// \returns the VSEW for the instruction.
+static inline VSEW getVSEW(uint64_t TSFlags) {
+  return static_cast<VSEW>((TSFlags & VSEWMask) >> VSEWShift);
+}
+
+/// \returns true if there is a SEW value for the instruction.
+static inline bool hasSEW(uint64_t TSFlags) {
+  return hasSEWOp(TSFlags) || hasImplicitSEW(TSFlags);
+}
+
 static inline unsigned getVLOpNum(const MCInstrDesc &Desc) {
   const uint64_t TSFlags = Desc.TSFlags;
-  // This method is only called if we expect to have a VL operand, and all
-  // instructions with VL also have SEW.
-  assert(hasSEWOp(TSFlags) && hasVLOp(TSFlags));
-  unsigned Offset = 2;
+  // This method is only called if we expect to have a VL operand.
+  assert(hasVLOp(TSFlags));
+  // Some instructions don't have SEW operand.
+  unsigned Offset = 1 + hasSEWOp(TSFlags);
----------------
michaelmaitland wrote:

I think `hasSEWOp` returns `bool.` Is it correct to add `unsigned + bool`?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90396