"Kewen.Lin" <li...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> @@ -9195,12 +9222,13 @@ optimize_mask_stores (class loop *loop)
> }
>
> /* Decide whether it is possible to use a zero-based induction variable
> - when vectorizing LOOP_VINFO with a fully-masked loop. If it is,
> - return the value that the induction variable must be able to hold
> - in order to ensure that the loop ends with an all-false mask.
> - Return -1 otherwise. */
> + when vectorizing LOOP_VINFO with partial vectors. If it is, return
> + the value that the induction variable must be able to hold in order
> + to ensure that the loop ends with an all-false rgroup control like
> + mask. Return -1 otherwise. */
Maybe: “…in order to ensure that the rgroups eventually have no active
vector elements”.
> static void
> -check_load_store_masking (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo, tree vectype,
> - vec_load_store_type vls_type, int group_size,
> - vect_memory_access_type memory_access_type,
> - gather_scatter_info *gs_info, tree scalar_mask)
> +check_load_store_for_partial_vectors (
> + loop_vec_info loop_vinfo, tree vectype, vec_load_store_type vls_type,
> + int group_size, vect_memory_access_type memory_access_type,
> + gather_scatter_info *gs_info, tree scalar_mask)
Think it's more usual in GCC to put the "(" on the same line as the
arguments in this situation.
OK with those changes, thanks.
Richard
