public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/110751] RISC-V: Suport undefined value that allows VSETVL PASS use TA/MA Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 12:47:28 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-110751-4-njuN2ickNY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-110751-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110751 --- Comment #18 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I'd understood LLVM's undef as essentially being “unspecified”, or “unspecified bit-pattern” to quote the docs. It doesn't indicate undefined behaviour in the C/C++ sense: Undefined values are useful because they indicate to the compiler that the program is well defined no matter what value is used. And I think that's what we want here. The reason we have TARGET_PREFERRED_ELSE_VALUE is that the vectoriser sometimes doesn't care what values the inactive lanes of the result have. The else value can be anything without affecting the validity of the program. So if we had undef, we wouldn't need the hook. I think the same thing applies to a VEC_PERM_EXPR that only selects from the first vector. We canonicalise that by duplicating the vector input, but IMO an undef second operand would be more accurate. An undef value would also allow us to represent “don't care” indices in a permute index vector, such as -1 in a __builtin_shuffle call. (There were times when I wanted the same thing in the vectoriser too, but I can't remember where.) There again, a separate “care/don't care” mask might be better for VLA. ACLE provides “svundef” functions that have essentially the same semantics as LLVM's undef. So I Think it would be useful to be able to access the semantics outside of these particular IFNs.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-21 12:47 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-07-20 9:03 [Bug target/110751] New: " xuli1 at eswincomputing dot com 2023-07-20 9:10 ` [Bug target/110751] " juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-07-20 9:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-20 9:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-20 9:58 ` kito at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-20 11:28 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2023-07-20 11:43 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-07-20 12:00 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-07-20 12:35 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2023-07-20 12:42 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-07-20 12:45 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2023-07-20 12:50 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-07-20 12:56 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2023-07-20 13:29 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-20 13:32 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2023-07-20 22:03 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-07-21 1:53 ` xuli1 at eswincomputing dot com 2023-07-21 6:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-21 12:47 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2023-07-21 12:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-21 13:23 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-24 6:20 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2023-07-25 7:05 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-09-12 11:44 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-09-12 14:24 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-09-12 14:53 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-09-12 15:59 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-09-12 16:21 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-09-12 16:27 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-09-12 16:31 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-09-12 22:44 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-09-13 7:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-09-13 8:34 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-09-13 8:39 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-09-13 9:38 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-09-13 9:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-09-13 9:48 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-09-13 9:48 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-09-13 10:15 ` rguenther at suse dot de 2023-09-13 22:39 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-09-14 8:53 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-09-14 9:15 ` richard.sandiford at arm dot com 2023-09-20 16:27 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-09-21 9:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-09-21 9:28 ` juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai 2023-09-22 7:31 ` xuli1 at eswincomputing dot com 2023-09-22 7:33 ` xuli1 at eswincomputing dot com
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-110751-4-njuN2ickNY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).