Hi, Richard. >> No, I meant that the comment I quoted seemed to be saying that solution >> 3 wasn't possible. The comment seemed to say that we would need to do >> solution 1. I am so sorry that I didn't write the comments accurately. Could you help me with comments ? Base on what we have discussed above (I think we are on same page now). Hmmm. I am not the native English speaker, I use google translator for comments :).
>> When comparing solutions 2 and 3 for case (b), is solution 3 still better? >> E.g. is "vsetvli zero" cheaper than "vsetvli <gpr>"? "vsetvli zero" is the same cost as "vsetvli gpr", I think for (b), solution 2 and solution 3 should be almost the same. juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai From: Richard Sandiford Date: 2023-06-05 15:57 To: juzhe.zhong\@rivai.ai CC: gcc-patches; rguenther Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Add SELECT_VL support Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> writes: > "juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai" <juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai> writes: >> Hi, Richard. Thanks for the comments. >> >>>> If we use SELECT_VL to refer only to the target-independent ifn, I don't >>>> see why this last bit is true. >> Could you give me more details and information about this since I am not >> sure whether I catch up with you. >> You mean the current SELECT_VL is not an appropriate IFN? > > No, I meant that the comment I quoted seemed to be saying that solution > 3 wasn't possible. The comment seemed to say that we would need to do > solution 1. Sorry, I meant solution 2 rather than solution 3.
