Re: [AArch64] Enable generation of FRINTNZ instructions

["Andre Vieira (lists)" <andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.com>]

On 07/11/2022 14:56, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>
>> On 07/11/2022 11:05, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2022, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry for the delay, just been reminded I still had this patch outstanding
>>>> from last stage 1. Hopefully since it has been mostly reviewed it could go
>>>> in
>>>> for this stage 1?
>>>>
>>>> I addressed the comments and gave the slp-part of vectorizable_call some
>>>> TLC
>>>> to make it work.
>>>>
>>>> I also changed vect_get_slp_defs as I noticed that the call from
>>>> vectorizable_call was creating an auto_vec with 'nargs' that might be less
>>>> than the number of children in the slp_node
>>> how so?  Please fix that in the caller.  It looks like it probably
>>> shoud use vect_nargs instead?
>> Well that was my first intuition, but when I looked at it further the variant
>> it's calling:
>> void vect_get_slp_defs (vec_info *, slp_tree slp_node, vec<vec<tree> >
>> *vec_oprnds, unsigned n)
>>
>> Is actually creating a vector of vectors of slp defs. So for each child of
>> slp_node it calls:
>> void vect_get_slp_defs (slp_tree slp_node, vec<tree> *vec_defs)
>>
>> Which returns a vector of vectorized defs. So vect_nargs would be the right
>> size for the inner vec<tree> of vec_defs, but the outer should have the same
>> number of elements as the original slp_node has children.
> No, the inner vector is the vector of vectors for each arg, the outer
> vector should be the one for each argument.  Hm, that was a confusing
> sentence.
>
> That said, the number of SLP children of a call node should eventually
> be the number of arguments of the call (plus masks, etc.).  So it
> looks about correct besides the vec_nargs issue?
Yeah you are right, I misunderstood what the children were, so you have 
a child node for each argument of the call. Though, since you iterate 
over the 'scalar' arguments of the call I actually think 'nargs' was 
correct to begin with, which would explain why this never went wrong... 
So I think it is actually correct as is, I must have gotten confused by 
some earlier investigation into how to deal with the scalar arguments... 
Sorry for the noise, I'll undo these changes to the patch.