Hi, Richards.
Could you take a look at this patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/618241.html
Thanks
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Richard Sandiford
Date: 2023-05-11 20:42
To: juzhe.zhong\@rivai.ai
CC: gcc-patches; rguenther
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] VECT: Add decrement IV ite
Thanks. I have read rgroup descriptions again.
Still I am not fully understand it clearly, bear with me :)
I don't known how to differentiate Case 2 and Case 3.
Case 2 is multiple rgroup for SLP.
Case 3 is multiple rgroup for non-SLP (VEC_PACK_TRUNC)
Is it correct:
case 2: rgc->max_nscalarper_it
Oh, I see. But I saw there is a variable using_partial_vectors_p
in the loop data structure.
Can I add a variable call using_select_vl_p ?
Since it may increase the size of data structure, I am not sure whether it is
appropriate.
Thanks.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Richard Sandiford
Date: 202
Hi， Richard. Since create_iv has been approved and soon will be commited after
we bootstrap && regression.
Now, I plan to send patch for "decrement IV".
After reading your comments, I have several questions:
1.
>if (use_bias_adjusted_len)
> return rgl->bias_adjusted_ctrl;
> + else if
Thank you so much.
Can you take a look at this patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/618110.html
Thanks.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Richard Sandiford
Date: 2023-05-11 12:50
To: 钟居哲
CC: gcc-patches; rguenther
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] VECT: Add decrement IV iteration loop con
I am sorry that I am still confused about that.
Is this what you want ?
bool use_minus_p = TREE_CODE (step) == INTEGER_CST && ((TYPE_UNSIGNED
(TREE_TYPE (step)) && tree_int_cst_lt (step1, step))
|| (!TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (step)) &&
!tree_expr_nonnegative_warnv_p (step
Thanks Richard.
I am planning to seperate a patch with only creat_iv stuff only.
Are you suggesting that I remove "tree_code incr_op = code;"
Use the argument directly ?
I saw the codes here:
/* For easier readability of the created code, produce MINUS_EXPRs
when suitable. */
if (TREE_
type, factor));
+ if (seq)
+ gsi_insert_seq_before (gsi, seq, GSI_SAME_STMT);
+ }
+ return loop_len;
+}
else
return rgl->controls[index];
}Thansk.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
Date: 2023-05-09 21:27
To: richard.sandiford
CC: gcc
Thanks, Richard.
>> Could you go into more details about this? I imagined that for case 3,
>> there would be a single SELECT_VL that decides how many scalar iterations
>> will be handled by the current vector iteration, then we would "expand"
>> the result (using MIN_EXPRs) to the multi-control c
Hi，Richards. Would you mind reviewing this patch?
Thanks.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Jeff Law
Date: 2023-05-07 23:19
To: juzhe.zhong; gcc-patches
CC: richard.sandiford; rguenther
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] VECT: Add decrement IV iteration loop control by
variable amount support
On 5/4/23 07:
Hi, Kewen.
I have tried to implement "decrement IV" feature and incorporate into
"vect_set_loop_controls_directly".
Since the implementation is quite different from
vect_set_loop_controls_directly, it will make vect_set_loop_controls_directly
very complicated sometimes it makes me very hard to
Hi, Kewen.>> Sorry for chiming in, I had some concern here.
>> We already have some handlings for partial vector in length in
>> vect_set_loop_controls_directly
>>(actually it deals with both mask and length), the proposed
>>vect_set_loop_controls_by_select_vl
>>for select_vl looks like a variant
>> It's been pretty standard to stick with just PLUS_EXPR for this stuff
>> and instead negate the constant to produce the same effect as
>> MINUS_EXPR. Is there a reason we're not continuing that practice?
>> Sorry if you've answered this already -- if you have, you can just point
>> me at the pr
13 matches
Mail list logo
