https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112092
--- Comment #9 from JuzheZhong <juzhe.zhong at rivai dot ai> --- (In reply to Maciej W. Rozycki from comment #7) > Thank you for all your explanations. I think I'm still missing something > here, so I'll write it differently (and let's ignore the tail-agnostic vs > tail-undisturbed choice for the purpose of this consideration). > > Why is the `vl' value determined by hardware from `avl' by an explicit > request (!) of the programmer who inserted the vsetvl intrinsics ignored? > Is the compiler able to prove the use of `avl' in place of `vl' does not > affect the operation of the VLE32.V and VSE32.V instructions in any way? > What is the purpose of these intrinsics if they can be freely ignored? > > Please forgive me if my questions seem to you obvious to answer or > irrelevant, I'm still rather new to this RVV stuff. As long as the ratio of user vsetvl intrinsics are same as the following RVV normal instruction, compiler is free to optimize it. For example: vl = __riscv_vsetvl_e32m1 (avl) __riscv_vadd_vv_i32m1 (...,vl) A naive way to insert vsetvl: vsetvl VL, AVL e32 m1 vsetvl zero, VL e32 m1 vadd.vv Howerver, since they are have same ratio, we can do it: vsetvl zero, AVL e32 m1 vadd.vv It's absolutely correct in-dependent on hardware. However, different ratio: vl = __riscv_vsetvl_e32m1 (avl) __riscv_vadd_vv_i64m1 (...,vl) vsetvl VL, AVL e32 m1 vsetvl zero, VL e64 m1 vadd.vv We can't optimize it. This is the only correct codegen. Thanks.
