Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> writes:
> On 23 June 2023 01:51:12 CEST, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
>>From: Ju-Zhe Zhong <juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai>
>
> I am sorry but I somehow overlooked a trivial spot in V5.
> Nit which does not warrant an immediate next version, but please consider it
> before pushing iff approved:
>
>>+ if (final_len)
>>+ {
>>+ signed char biasval
>>+ = LOOP_VINFO_PARTIAL_LOAD_STORE_BIAS (loop_vinfo);
>>+
>>+ bias = build_int_cst (intQI_type_node, biasval);
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ /* Arguments are ready. Create the new vector stmt. */
>>+ if (final_len)
>>+ {
>
> Fuse the block below into the one above as the condition seems to be
> identical?
Yeah, true, but I think the idea is that the code above “Arguments are
ready” is calculating argument values, and the code after it is creating
code. These are two separate steps, and the fact that the two final_len
blocks end up being consecutive is something of a coincidence.
So personally I think we should keep the structure in the patch.
Thanks,
Richard
