From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 105446 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2019 12:30:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 105217 invoked by uid 89); 25 Oct 2019 12:30:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: foss.arm.com Received: from foss.arm.com (HELO foss.arm.com) (217.140.110.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 12:30:23 +0000 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 1AC6528 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 05:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (e121540-lin.manchester.arm.com [10.32.98.126]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B58AF3F6C4 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 05:30:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Sandiford To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Mail-Followup-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, richard.sandiford@arm.com Subject: [0/n] Support multiple vector sizes for vectorisation Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 12:32:00 -0000 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-10/txt/msg01823.txt.bz2 This is a continuation of the patch series I started on Wednesday this time posted under a covering message. Parts 1-5 were: [1/n] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01634.html [2/n] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01637.html [3/n] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01638.html [4/n] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01639.html [5/n] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01641.html Some parts of the series will conflict with Andre's patches, so I'll hold off applying anything that gets approved until those patches have gone in. The conflicts should only be minor though, and won't change the approach, so I thought it was worth posting for comments now anyway. I tested each patch individually on aarch64-linux-gnu and the series as a whole on x86_64-linux-gnu. I also tried building at least one target per CPU directory and spot-checked that they were behaving sensibly after the patch. Thanks, Richard