> > So I expect you will also apply those refactor on Juzhe's new changes?
> > If so I would like to have a separated NFC refactor patch if possible.
>
> What's NFC? :) Do you mean to just have the refactor part as a separate
> patch? If yes, I agree.
NFC: non-functional-change, that's a term us
l Collison; Jeff Law
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Implement autovec abs, vneg, vnot.
So I expect you will also apply those refactor on Juzhe's new changes?
If so I would like to have a separated NFC refactor patch if possible.
e.g.
Juzhe's vec_cmp/vcond -> NFC refactor patch -> abs,
> So I expect you will also apply those refactor on Juzhe's new changes?
> If so I would like to have a separated NFC refactor patch if possible.
What's NFC? :) Do you mean to just have the refactor part as a separate
patch? If yes, I agree.
> e.g.
> Juzhe's vec_cmp/vcond -> NFC refactor patch
So I expect you will also apply those refactor on Juzhe's new changes?
If so I would like to have a separated NFC refactor patch if possible.
e.g.
Juzhe's vec_cmp/vcond -> NFC refactor patch -> abs, vneg, vnot
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 4:59 PM Robin Dapp wrote:
>
> As discussed with Juzhe off-list
As discussed with Juzhe off-list, I will rebase this patch against
Juzhe's vec_cmp/vcond patch once that hits the trunk.
Regards
Robin
钟居哲; gcc-patches; kito.cheng; palmer; Michael Collison; Jeff Law
CC: rdapp.gcc
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Implement autovec abs, vneg, vnot.
>>> + TAIL_UNDEFINED = -1,
>>> + MASK_UNDEFINED = -1,
> Why you add this ?
>
>>> + void add_policy_operands (enum tail_policy vt
>>> + TAIL_UNDEFINED = -1,
>>> + MASK_UNDEFINED = -1,
> Why you add this ?
>
>>> + void add_policy_operands (enum tail_policy vta = TAIL_UNDEFINED,
>>> + enum mask_policy vma = MASK_UNDEFINED)
> No, you should just specify this as TAIL_ANY or MASK_ANY as default value.
That's the value I i
>> + TAIL_UNDEFINED = -1,
>> + MASK_UNDEFINED = -1,
Why you add this ?
>> + void add_policy_operands (enum tail_policy vta = TAIL_UNDEFINED,
>> + enum mask_policy vma = MASK_UNDEFINED)
No, you should just specify this as TAIL_ANY or MASK_ANY as default value.
>>const_vlmax_p (machine_mode
