From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pj1-x1030.google.com (mail-pj1-x1030.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2866C3858D20 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 22:45:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 2866C3858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-pj1-x1030.google.com with SMTP id a16so4606177pjs.4 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 15:45:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1679784336; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KJjr/m8syO5KyMwRb2CE0Wh+h7+ZOwR6dV7Itor7VVg=; b=aVJ+ZZd1BYKPCeHV2o1u7Oe/cssJynSviWeiflcT6PKHTkKJQTlue3RXx7hSUZreuz 0E3mn7XWin9vHRqOjuRjAgaEm09Zr0nwQKQb0wTdFJrZHI1BBJFnT66oODwxHwWzePQ1 vh8SY1i8YaicUAvLGzGWKra+bv4yaYwh35fl6rGVrOqykNXSEknDgw+TTlOFA/iQm3ls znriMTRcZUzP2suMPstEXijMArJwu+/q9ATGk07pfHCGNCW888/DKjm+RjXVlYpQN5Q7 6LXU08f9yQVqUhKTH7U2iB3I70TeLWZA0kF3WvMLTHtCEUar2FxfAL8jGODybvOIRFry gSEw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1679784336; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=KJjr/m8syO5KyMwRb2CE0Wh+h7+ZOwR6dV7Itor7VVg=; b=B7JZCdwc7sUyG/cWG6mcNzFzdFAPj8xwnhKnAn3TJ9q2tRGCeRT3QhB7jGXUEzAudq Bb0yjR68dYWEWzE21WxkwPIJpPGFexSqMXGohK73r8eICuJJ1hUHSrv46N5J9jGr37zi fZeSvdyEkOFR7KvVS5pR/sKE/wNT20x2ngK3FB39Jfm6h83Bi9xtnSQuVNb56P+SWAJ+ 7Sikdb3jfp2X1t6ueCDL0UWrgGOPx31Pn4Rc9dbMNThI0Cq1n3AtijrYnQa3llKZDwut sDeyck3EPCb9FUsEqHiygRGWnPWvDVkvcJzK9alzoJXdecH+9W833J0uAJsm5zF0eAgE +TnA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9f4yHqyorvpJgbkSZBnWd0EY+Li9o6FQLcukWVmXq37HOP83CdM U90fIygjMaYdQCAxXEQJJpQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aup4kiksG765qZREhspaxquuJurXhJzcFfT7XSLuv09uSaCCbnyHzYdPUBEvQuu3YSdLBt2g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:f545:b0:1a1:7da3:ef5b with SMTP id h5-20020a170902f54500b001a17da3ef5bmr7080199plf.7.1679784334950; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 15:45:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2601:681:8600:13d0::f0a? ([2601:681:8600:13d0::f0a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 12-20020a170902c10c00b001993a1fce7bsm16413939pli.196.2023.03.25.15.45.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 25 Mar 2023 15:45:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <08bf03ee-d5aa-fc95-b630-3e3facd373b0@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 16:45:33 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] vect: Check that vector factor is a compile-time constant Content-Language: en-US To: Palmer Dabbelt Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Vineet Gupta , Kito Cheng , collison@rivosinc.com, juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai, kito.cheng@sifive.com, richard.sandiford@arm.com, richard.guenther@gmail.com References: From: Jeff Law In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 3/23/23 20:28, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:18:20 PDT (-0700), jeffreyalaw@gmail.com wrote: > > OK.  We don't have a hard need there, but it'll make life easier so I'm > happy to just treat it like a real shipping branch if you guys are going > to as well. I'd planned to use it for Ventana's gcc-13 baseline since we're going to want RVV support before gcc-14 hits the streets. So from Ventana's viewpoint is's like a real shipping branch. > > Are you OK just having a single "gcc-13 with RISC-V performance > backports" branch, or do you want just vector backports?  Our internal > branch would be all performance-related backports, but no big deal if > the upstream stuff is vector-only as that's probably going to be 90%+ of > the churn. I can live with performance backports. It wasn't my original intent, but I see the benefits to the ecosystem. > >> Thanks for raising the need for a development coordination branch. > > I guess "need" is kind of strong: IMO it's up to the people actually > doing the work how to organize the branches.  I'm not writing the code > here so I'm happy with whatever, just pointing out that there's two > different things that could be done ;) I think there's enough interested parties for the development side as well that ca;ling it a "need" isn't a significant stretch. jeff