Re: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Add SELECT_VL support

["juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai" <juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1561 bytes --]

Hi, Richard.

>> No, I meant that the comment I quoted seemed to be saying that solution
>> 3 wasn't possible.  The comment seemed to say that we would need to do
>> solution 1.
I am so sorry that I didn't write the comments accurately.
Could you help me with comments ? Base on what we have discussed above (I think we are on same page now).
Hmmm. I am not the native English speaker, I use google translator for comments :).

>> When comparing solutions 2 and 3 for case (b), is solution 3 still better?
>> E.g. is "vsetvli zero" cheaper than "vsetvli <gpr>"?


"vsetvli zero" is the same cost as "vsetvli gpr", 

I think for (b),  solution 2 and solution 3 should be almost the same.




juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai
 
From: Richard Sandiford
Date: 2023-06-05 15:57
To: juzhe.zhong\@rivai.ai
CC: gcc-patches; rguenther
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] VECT: Add SELECT_VL support
Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com> writes:
> "juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai" <juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai> writes:
>> Hi, Richard. Thanks for the comments.
>>
>>>> If we use SELECT_VL to refer only to the target-independent ifn, I don't
>>>> see why this last bit is true.
>> Could you give me more details and information about this since I am not sure whether I catch up with you. 
>> You mean the current SELECT_VL is not an appropriate IFN?
>
> No, I meant that the comment I quoted seemed to be saying that solution
> 3 wasn't possible.  The comment seemed to say that we would need to do
> solution 1.
 
Sorry, I meant solution 2 rather than solution 3.