From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl1-x635.google.com (mail-pl1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B08103887B01 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 01:53:52 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org B08103887B01 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-pl1-x635.google.com with SMTP id a9so3971705pld.7 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 17:53:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; 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=Ef2faethQ7Bb5PbNZ/sdr1PtnlvT18IwsrIZHtZp3Ec=; b=UmhZz0V5PF0xXMXBOsIRt+VqKZvhTXEw0QCbZuwYwLlMaLNe1a2Or9ES9LQbXU0tVO RKEiNRQlvprGq+T+9nOl0yUJRo4BiyjljsmQCFo0olOIlD3YCAIwJBJDJHax6sKYSBma Dl7udKsbumVLaZZk3MXUp20dHSdyXiCTQAzCvwEOWYmg02tXpVI3V2meglpKK3T00fbX hj2OZoxmG0KM0lgw+Ajqm1hOe/fboPdtZGhPljsgzaNGMNTZiFvw2Py3vtZ4bJOBjsNn TzkLmmQgR91i0ybQCTaGjymPS2ms0yYdsdc7Z1a+RMHadD7gUxA2i4EFBKAqBeLX7Ygk esFw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; 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=Ef2faethQ7Bb5PbNZ/sdr1PtnlvT18IwsrIZHtZp3Ec=; b=hGCQSSKYXd/5Hh3x7IQhnh26IXOLmJ0XEcuYj+G3ZyvxJ66CpQisMjL+MnWKLcM/NL IyQJeMfoNV/bAJrIBu2rIigCVmIwRtu+SXjdEQFTECGXmPC39Il7W+yV7f2PDU5rXu23 WqG5xu5FWOiPLgLj2sFov/nEePsgepGTaGHGq5+LhDDcxnUnY8WzFVIIx/JX82WUI01Q HOJAi5mex0BjiMmeL4/IXPPb48YmUQDzt36e2Pq9mpVinkDGkw7cfzzTN0aWNfPUDpzu 6asdzDLs6RCdkUbNaEBmaI4UpT/OXSbkZwfT524bIcWbn1J07zFHTfl+Zyq+3gJUPa0C TIjQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pk9ZTL3hzq10eBw6b9l8kdscd6GY9o0Y3sQjyTReT4TORwMaCOh 9Pq0snClSBd8DNgLAgaATAg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf4OmUM7r/f80VXDl0sKzeNh1YaP8htpGRbOa3ktzMzMwSN3iZEXyfbusM7HhxZ4PNio/bKB8g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8c8d:b0:187:262a:7955 with SMTP id t13-20020a1709028c8d00b00187262a7955mr31892484plo.9.1671242031546; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 17:53:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2601:681:8600:13d0::f0a? ([2601:681:8600:13d0::f0a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j13-20020a170902da8d00b0017f756563bcsm2282140plx.47.2022.12.16.17.53.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Dec 2022 17:53:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <75eb29fd-6449-e2d1-2702-d297373cecf3@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 18:53:49 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Fix RVV mask mode size Content-Language: en-US To: =?UTF-8?B?6ZKf5bGF5ZOy?= , gcc-patches Cc: "kito.cheng" , palmer References: <20221214064825.240605-1-juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai> <190019d9-155b-e0d1-43d3-d9baae96a2cc@gmail.com> <27D1642B23C2C0D1+2022121709442960704166@rivai.ai> From: Jeff Law In-Reply-To: <27D1642B23C2C0D1+2022121709442960704166@rivai.ai> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,BODY_8BITS,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 12/16/22 18:44, 钟居哲 wrote: > Yes, VNx4DF only has 4 bit in mask mode in case of load and store. > For example vlm or vsm we will load store 8-bit ??? (I am not sure > hardward can load store 4bit,but I am sure it definetly not load store > the whole register size) Most likely than not you end up loading a larger quantity with the high bits zero'd. Interesting that we're using a packed model. I'd been told it was fairly expensive to implement in hardware relative to teh cost of implementing the sparse model. > So ideally it should be model more accurate. However, since GCC assumes > that 1 BOOL is 1-byte, the only thing I do is to model mask mode as > smallest as possible. > Maybe in the future, I can support 1BOOL for 1-bit?? I am not sure since > it will need to change GCC framework. I'm a bit confused by this. GCC can support single bit bools, though ports often extend them to 8 bits or more for computational efficiency purposes. At least that's the case in general. Is there something particularly special about masks & bools that's causing problems? Jeff