On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 07/21/2016 03:15 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> >> In my list I see #1, #4, and #5 are not approved. > > So I think Richi wanted to see param control for the new options; Joseph > wanted the new options properly documented in invoke.texi; I had a few > higher level questions which you answered. Your updated patch #1 added > param control and invoke.texi documentation. So IMHO, #1 is approved. > > > #4 had some whitespace nits and needed some light doc improvements which > you've done. I think the only real implementation issue was computing costs > in a single scan vs restarting the scan. I was OK with the single scan > approach you took -- not sure how strongly Richi feels about restarting the > scan. Seems like Richi needs to chime in on that topic.
I'm ok with a single scan as well. The thing that needs work I think is re-running of if-conversion. Also I don't like at all that we have many variants of vectorizing but somehow the decision which one to choose is rather unclear. The way the epilogue vectorization code is hooked in is rather awkward and bound to be a maintainance burden (well, maybe a small one). And last, I double there is a case for a masked vectorized loop - I can bet that doing a non-masked vectorized loop plus a masked epilogue (with no iteration then!) will be always faster unless you hit the window of very few iterations (or optimizing for size - in which case vectorizing is questionable on its own and disabled IIRC). I don't mind Jeff not caring too much about this as I do not have sufficient time to iterate over this patch series with you within reasonable time. Thanks, Richard. > I'm hoping to finish reviewing the update to #5 today. > > jeff
