From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rguenther@suse.de>
Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6415838582A6
	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:14:17 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6415838582A6
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.de
Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134])
	by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C3A920600;
	Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:14:16 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa;
	t=1666008856; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:
	 mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=7rTmzQZZ8iV8bglAgO2sBrLLUS+Aaa6GSeoJOLo0m3U=;
	b=qU2IbCtsJmkOpUxXSumeoyW6pCwdlDUTs25clqeFIdf1cgP/ndF8e91JGt/5RTQlMto49T
	djxPg5TMPSIvjN0G4t5G8BJiFF1XffwDhFfPqifdOvxqzqMDR+TROMr7M06l60zsxn2718
	mfsEPGHY7/ZbMJ+Dmkew2QXKdP+/Q24=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de;
	s=susede2_ed25519; t=1666008856;
	h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:
	 mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=7rTmzQZZ8iV8bglAgO2sBrLLUS+Aaa6GSeoJOLo0m3U=;
	b=8mU09JjsDzyfyOU7POl+eTZk7DYsp59Q6mkmtdzMRJpx9Q1nW54NJwVshT+etafNTVuKU6
	kTh/W6Sr5B86KnDw==
Received: from wotan.suse.de (wotan.suse.de [10.160.0.1])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8F212C141;
	Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:14:15 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:14:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
To: "juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai" <juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai>
cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, 
    "richard.sandiford" <richard.sandiford@arm.com>, 
    ams <ams@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFT] Vectorization of first-order recurrences
In-Reply-To: <02651FEADC20AB80+2022101116342725936522@rivai.ai>
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.77.849.2210171211330.18337@jbgna.fhfr.qr>
References: <20221010110339.E9E2513479@imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de> <02651FEADC20AB80+2022101116342725936522@rivai.ai>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (LSU 394 2020-01-19)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,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: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022, juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai wrote:

> Hi, I apply this patch in RVV downstrean. Tested it with a lot of vector benchmark. It overal has a greate performance gain.
> Maybe the last thing to merge this patch is wait for Richard Sandiford test it in ARM SVE?
> 
> By the way, would you mind sharing the case list that GCC failed to vectorize but Clang succeed ? 
> I am familiar with LLVM. I think I can do this job.

Sure - for (most of?) the TSVC tests GCC is failing to vectorize there
should be a bugzilla open.  So if you have TSVC tests that LLVM can
vectorize but GCC can not then check if there is a bugzilla open.
If so, note that LLVM can vectorize, if not, open one.

I have now pushed the change.

Thanks,
Richard.