From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8175A3858C3A for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:51:40 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 8175A3858C3A Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F5681FB; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 05:52:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.27.168] (E121495.arm.com [10.1.27.168]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 736FD3F5A1; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 05:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <965e9d26-5664-ccee-888c-8151b4c0abcb@arm.com> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:51:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1 Subject: Re: [PING][PATCH 2/2] arm: Add support for MVE Tail-Predicated Low Overhead Loops Content-Language: en-US To: Kyrylo Tkachov , Stam Markianos-Wright , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Cc: Richard Earnshaw , "jlaw@ventanamicro.com" References: <949f5dd0-cdf0-715a-f04c-3de80c9b974f@arm.com> From: "Andre Vieira (lists)" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_NONE,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,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: Hi, On 14/09/2023 13:10, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote: > Hi Stam, > > > The arm parts look sensible but we'd need review for the df-core.h and df-core.cc changes. > Maybe Jeff can help or can recommend someone to take a look? > Thanks, > Kyrill > FWIW the changes LGTM, if we don't want these in df-core we can always implement the extra utility locally. It's really just a helper function to check if df_bb_regno_first_def_find and df_bb_regno_last_def_find yield the same result, meaning we only have a single definition. Kind regards, Andre