From: "Kewen.Lin" <linkw@linux.ibm.com>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,
Peter Bergner <bergner@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vect: Refactor code for index == count in vect_transform_slp_perm_load_1
Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 13:37:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3ad4e564-37f4-1998-9016-057aec591885@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc3BC=TFNLm_+oiSwbwx0rGRd-6yFN5tW22znzG0g3vDbw@mail.gmail.com>
on 2023/5/18 14:12, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 9:19 AM Kewen.Lin <linkw@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Richi,
>>
>> on 2023/5/17 14:34, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 8:09 AM Kewen.Lin <linkw@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> This patch is to refactor the handlings for the case (index
>>>> == count) in a loop of vect_transform_slp_perm_load_1, in
>>>> order to prepare a subsequent adjustment on *nperm. This
>>>> patch doesn't have any functional changes.
>>>
>>> The diff is impossible to be reviewed - can you explain the
>>> refactoring you have done or also attach a patch more clearly
>>> showing what you change?
>>
>> Sorry, I should have made it more clear.
>> It mainly to combine these two hunks:
>>
>> if (index == count && !noop_p)
>> {
>> // A ...
>> // ++*n_perms;
>> }
>>
>> if (index == count)
>> {
>> if (!analyze_only)
>> {
>> if (!noop_p)
>> // B1 ...
>>
>> // B2 ...
>>
>> for ...
>> {
>> if (!noop_p)
>> // B3 building VEC_PERM_EXPR
>> else
>> // B4 building nothing (no uses for B2 and its seq)
>> }
>> }
>> // B5
>> }
>>
>> The former can be part of the latter, so it becomes to:
>>
>> if (index == count)
>> {
>> if (!noop_p)
>> {
>> // A ...
>> // ++*n_perms;
>>
>> if (!analyze_only)
>> {
>> // B1 ...
>> // B2 ...
>> for ...
>> // B3 building VEC_PERM_EXPR
>> }
>> }
>> else if (!analyze_only)
>> {
>> // no B2 since no any further uses here.
>> for ...
>> // B4 building nothing
>> }
>> // B5 ...
>> }
>
> Ah, thanks - that made reviewing easy. 1/2 is OK for trunk.
Thanks for the review! Pushed as r14-1028.
BR,
Kewen
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-22 5:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-17 6:09 Kewen.Lin
2023-05-17 6:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] vect: Enhance cost evaluation " Kewen.Lin
2023-05-22 13:44 ` Richard Biener
2023-05-23 3:01 ` Kewen.Lin
2023-05-23 6:19 ` Richard Biener
2023-05-24 5:23 ` Kewen.Lin
2023-05-17 6:34 ` [PATCH 1/2] vect: Refactor code for index == count " Richard Biener
2023-05-17 7:18 ` Kewen.Lin
2023-05-18 6:12 ` Richard Biener
2023-05-22 5:37 ` Kewen.Lin [this message]
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=3ad4e564-37f4-1998-9016-057aec591885@linux.ibm.com \
--to=linkw@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=bergner@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.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: link
Be 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).