Re: [PATCH] vect: Check that vector factor is a compile-time constant

[Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>]

On 3/17/23 10:57, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:

> 
> I'm a little bit confused about what the proposal is here: is the idea 
> to have a branch based on gcc-13 where we coordinate work before it 
> lands on trunk, or a branch based on gcc-13 where we backport 
> autovec-related patches once they've landed on trunk?  In my mind those 
> are actually two different things and I think they're both useful, maybe 
> we should just do both?
I was thinking it was a branch to coordinate backports.  We could also 
have a branch to coordinate development before it lands on the trunk.


The former provides a base for those who might want a stable gcc-13 
based compiler, but with RVV support.  The latter is more focused on 
ongoing development.


> 
>> That implies we need to identify the principals.  I'll suggest Kito,
>> Juzhe, Michael and myself as the initial list.  I'm certainly open to
>> others joining.
> 
> +Vineet, who's been handling our internal GCC branches.
OK.


> 
> Sorry if that throws a bit of a wrench in the works.
No worries at all.

> 
> Just for context: in Rivos land we don't have any specific timelines 
> around 13, so the goal on our end is just to keep the vectorization 
> stuff progressing smoothly as we spin up more engineering resources on 
> it.  Our aim is just to get everything on trunk eventually, anything 
> else is just a stop-gap and we can work around it (though sharing that 
> work is always a win).
We don't have hard time lines (yet), but I can work backwards from 
various plans and conclude that Ventana will need a gcc-13 with vector 
backports, hence my original focus on that aspect of the coordination 
problem.

Thanks for raising the need for a development coordination branch.

jeff