dialects: (riscv) add shift right immediate canonicalization

[nmjfry]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 87.50000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 86.02%. Comparing base (f43c7a5) to head (6cf3307).
⚠️ Report is 246 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
xdsl/transforms/canonicalization_patterns/riscv.py	80.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5518      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   85.99%   86.02%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         389      392       +3     
  Lines       55708    55819     +111     
  Branches     6411     6420       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits        47906    48018     +112     
- Misses       6268     6269       +1     
+ Partials     1534     1532       -2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[superlopuh]

Code is looking great! This is one of the suggestions in the docs/index.md file, can you please replace it with a new one, one that isn't already implemented?

[nmjfry]

Code is looking great! This is one of the suggestions in the docs/index.md file, can you please replace it with a new one, one that isn't already implemented?

Thank you!
Of course! Although I didn't use the suggestion from index.md - so I can leave it for the next person?

[superlopuh]

I would prefer it if you changed it, as I'd like the state of that file to be consistent with the rest of the project, if that makes sense. If we merge this PR as-is, the next person might attempt to add a pattern that's already in the project, which would be a pretty bad experience.

[nmjfry]

I would prefer it if you changed it, as I'd like the state of that file to be consistent with the rest of the project, if that makes sense. If we merge this PR as-is, the next person might attempt to add a pattern that's already in the project, which would be a pretty bad experience.

Ahh yes makes sense :) thanks!!

[nmjfry]

I would prefer it if you changed it, as I'd like the state of that file to be consistent with the rest of the project, if that makes sense. If we merge this PR as-is, the next person might attempt to add a pattern that's already in the project, which would be a pretty bad experience.

Ok I updated the docs, might want to check this isn't already implemented as well. I could only see it for and and or but not the immediate versions

[superlopuh]

This is great! Thank you