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 909313858D28 for ; Wed, 24 May 2023 20:05:03 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 909313858D28 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 64BC11042; Wed, 24 May 2023 13:05:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (e121540-lin.manchester.arm.com [10.32.110.72]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B972E3F6C4; Wed, 24 May 2023 13:05:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Sandiford To: =?utf-8?B?6ZKf5bGF5ZOy?= Mail-Followup-To: =?utf-8?B?6ZKf5bGF5ZOy?= ,gcc-patches , rguenther , richard.sandiford@arm.com Cc: gcc-patches , rguenther Subject: Re: [PATCH V14] VECT: Add decrement IV iteration loop control by variable amount support References: <20230524144801.73537-1-juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai> <7AF1D88A0988DC3D+2023052423130398041121@rivai.ai> <5B94EE89DA317A86+2023052423421230674834@rivai.ai> <70D20B75C645F088+2023052423522166255038@rivai.ai> <01AC8631C2D651E1+2023052500374920817146@rivai.ai> Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 21:05:01 +0100 In-Reply-To: <01AC8631C2D651E1+2023052500374920817146@rivai.ai> (=?utf-8?B?IumSn+WxheWTsiIncw==?= message of "Thu, 25 May 2023 00:37:49 +0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-21.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,BODY_8BITS,KAM_DMARC_NONE,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: I'll look at the samples tomorrow, but just to address one thing: =E9=92=9F=E5=B1=85=E5=93=B2 writes: >>> What gives the best code in these cases? Is emitting a multiplication >>> better? Or is using a new IV better? > Could you give me more detail information about "new refresh IV" approach. > I'd like to try that. By =E2=80=9Cusing a new IV=E2=80=9D I meant calling vect_set_loop_controls_= directly for every rgroup, not just the first. So in the earlier example, there would be one decrementing IV for x and one decrementing IV for y. Thanks, Richard