Re: [PATCH 1/2] vect: Refactor code for index == count in vect_transform_slp_perm_load_1

[Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches]

on 2023/5/18 14:12, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 9:19 AM Kewen.Lin <li...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Richi,
>>
>> on 2023/5/17 14:34, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 8:09 AM Kewen.Lin <li...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> This patch is to refactor the handlings for the case (index
>>>> == count) in a loop of vect_transform_slp_perm_load_1, in
>>>> order to prepare a subsequent adjustment on *nperm.  This
>>>> patch doesn't have any functional changes.
>>>
>>> The diff is impossible to be reviewed - can you explain the
>>> refactoring you have done or also attach a patch more clearly
>>> showing what you change?
>>
>> Sorry, I should have made it more clear.
>> It mainly to combine these two hunks:
>>
>>   if (index == count && !noop_p)
>>     {
>>        // A ...
>>        // ++*n_perms;
>>     }
>>
>>   if (index == count)
>>     {
>>        if (!analyze_only)
>>          {
>>             if (!noop_p)
>>                // B1 ...
>>
>>             // B2 ...
>>
>>             for ...
>>               {
>>                  if (!noop_p)
>>                     // B3 building VEC_PERM_EXPR
>>                  else
>>                     // B4 building nothing (no uses for B2 and its seq)
>>               }
>>          }
>>        // B5
>>     }
>>
>> The former can be part of the latter, so it becomes to:
>>
>>   if (index == count)
>>     {
>>        if (!noop_p)
>>          {
>>            // A ...
>>            // ++*n_perms;
>>
>>            if (!analyze_only)
>>              {
>>                 // B1 ...
>>                 // B2 ...
>>                 for ...
>>                    // B3 building VEC_PERM_EXPR
>>              }
>>          }
>>        else if (!analyze_only)
>>          {
>>             // no B2 since no any further uses here.
>>             for ...
>>               // B4 building nothing
>>          }
>>         // B5 ...
>>     }
> 
> Ah, thanks - that made reviewing easy.  1/2 is OK for trunk.

Thanks for the review!  Pushed as r14-1028.

BR,
Kewen