Then you don't need to waste time on reduce the case from SPEC.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai From: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai Date: 2023-09-12 17:36 To: Robin Dapp; gcc-patches CC: Robin Dapp; kito.cheng; Kito.cheng; jeffreyalaw Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V4] RISC-V: Support Dynamic LMUL Cost model This is first version of dynamic LMUL. I didn't test it with full GCC testsuite. My plan is to first pass all GCC testsuite (including vect.exp) with default LMUL = M1. Then enable dynamic LMUL to test it. Maybe we could tolerate this ICE issue for now. Then we can test it with full GCC testsuite (I belive we can reproduce with some case in GCC testsuite in the future). Is that reasonable ? If yes, I will fix all your comments and send V5. juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai From: Robin Dapp Date: 2023-09-12 17:31 To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; gcc-patches CC: rdapp.gcc; kito.cheng; Kito.cheng; jeffreyalaw Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] RISC-V: Support Dynamic LMUL Cost model > Is calculix big ? It's 7 nested for loops IIRC and, when unrolling, can get pretty nasty. I tested with -Ofast -funroll-loops. I think wrf is even larger, maybe I can run a full comparison test tonight to have good coverage. > Could you give me the testcase to reproduce it? OK, I will try to reduce it, will be Fortran, though. Regards Robin
