>> This PR is not really resolved or affected by the patch if I'm not >>mistaken. We still have code paths that will generate a larger LMUL >>(also in vsetvl last I checked, but that was a while ago). Ok. we should only mention PR target/112651 which is enough.
>>Should it really be called autovec-max-lmul? We also use TARGET_MAX_LMUL >>for builtins etc. Or are we just following LLVM's naming here? >>Isn't -mrvv-max-lmul sufficient? The original option is kito's recommandation. Both -mrvv-max-lmul and -mrvv-autovec-max-lmul are ok for me. juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai From: Robin Dapp Date: 2024-03-14 18:59 To: 钟居哲; demin.han; gcc-patches CC: rdapp.gcc; kito.cheng; Li, Pan2; jeffreyalaw Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Introduce option -mrvv-autovec-max-lmul for RVV autovec Should it really be called autovec-max-lmul? We also use TARGET_MAX_LMUL for builtins etc. Or are we just following LLVM's naming here? Isn't -mrvv-max-lmul sufficient? > PR target/112648 <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112648> This PR is not really resolved or affected by the patch if I'm not mistaken. We still have code paths that will generate a larger LMUL (also in vsetvl last I checked, but that was a while ago). Regards Robin
