Re: [PATCH] vect: Check that vector factor is a compile-time constant

[Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>]

On 2/23/23 21:04, Kito Cheng wrote:
> Hi Jeff:
> 
>> What I'd been planning to do internally at Ventana was to update our
>> codebase to gcc-13 once it's released.  Then I'd backport RVV autovec
>> work from the gcc-14 dev tree into that Ventana branch.
>>
>> Instead, but along the same lines, we could have a public gcc-13 based
>> branch which follows that same process and where Rivos, SiFive, Rivai,
>> Ventana (and potentially others with an interest in this space) could
>> collaborate.  Essentially it'd be gcc-13 + RVV autovec support.  We'd
>> probably have to hash out a bit of policy with the shared branch, but
>> I'd like to think we could make it work.
> 
> +1, I like the idea, I could imagine we definitely will do the same
> work more than four times by different companies if we don't have a
> collaboration branch...
So it looks like there's a general sense that a coordination branch off 
gcc-13 is reasonable.  So I'd like to hammer out a few details.


First, I recommend we cut a branch from gcc-13 soon after gcc-13 
branches.  That way we've got a place to land the vector work.

Second, I recommend we rebase that branch periodically so that it 
follows gcc-13.  That means downstream consumers may have non-ff pulls, 
but I think we want to follow gcc-13 fairly closely.  I'm open to other 
approaches here.

Third, I was thinking that once a patch related to risc-v vectorization 
goes to the trunk, any one of the principals should be able to 
cherry-pick that patch onto our branch.

That implies we need to identify the principals.  I'll suggest Kito, 
Juzhe, Michael and myself as the initial list.  I'm certainly open to 
others joining.


Other thoughts or suggestions?

Jeff