public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: "juzhe.zhong\@rivai.ai" <juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai>
Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,  rguenther <rguenther@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V11] VECT: Add decrement IV support in Loop Vectorizer
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 12:07:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <mptsfbsr34d.fsf@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F105A4611BBBAF21+20230519185644430201101@rivai.ai> (juzhe's message of "Fri, 19 May 2023 18:56:44 +0800")

"juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai" <juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai> writes:
> Hi, Richard. Thanks for the comments.
>
> Would you mind telling me whether it is possible that we can make decrement IV support into GCC middle-end ?
>
> If yes, could you tell what I should do next for the patches since I am confused that it seems the implementation of this
> patch should totally be abandoned and need to rewrite the whole thing.

No, I haven't said that.  Like I say, I haven't had time to review the
decrementing IV part of the patch yet.  But the change I mentioned
earlier seemed like an unrelated fix that should go in first.

I was hoping to partially unblock your work by reviewing that part in
isolation rather than waiting until I had time to review the whole patch.
But I guess that's just created confusion rather than been helpful, sorry.

In other words: the decrementing IV patch should (I hope) be an
optimisation.  It shouldn't be needed for correctness.  The current
incrementing IVs should work for LOAD_LEN, but perhaps inefficiently.
Is that right?

In contrast, the change to vect_get_loop_len is a correctness fix
and I can't see how RVV would work without it.

Thanks,
Richard

      reply	other threads:[~2023-05-19 11:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-16 10:23 juzhe.zhong
2023-05-18 11:27 ` Li, Pan2
2023-05-19 10:23 ` Richard Sandiford
2023-05-19 10:37   ` juzhe.zhong
2023-05-19 10:58     ` Richard Sandiford
2023-05-22 10:12       ` Richard Biener
2023-05-22 10:18         ` juzhe.zhong
2023-05-19 10:56   ` juzhe.zhong
2023-05-19 11:07     ` Richard Sandiford [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=mptsfbsr34d.fsf@arm.com \
    --to=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai \
    --cc=rguenther@suse.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).