On 2/22/23 10:54, Michael Collison wrote:
Juzhe,
I disagree with this comment. There are many stakeholders for
autovectorization and waiting until GCC 14 is not a viable solution for
us as well as other stakeholders ready to begin work on autovectorization.
As we discussed I have been moving forward with patches for
autovectorization and am preparing to send them to gcc-patches. This
assert is preventing code from compiling and needs to be addressed.
If you have a solution in either the RISCV backend or in this file can
you please present it?
I don't necessarily think it means waiting for gcc-14, but it does mean
waiting for gcc-13 to branch and gcc-14 development to open. I would
object to anyone trying to push forward an autovec implementation into
gcc-13. We're well past that point IMHO, even if the changes only
affected the RISC-V backend.
Given that it looks like we have two independent implementations we're
almost certainly going to have to sit down with both, evaluate both from
a quality of code viewpoint and benchmark them both and ultimately
choose one implementation or the other, or maybe even some mixing and
matching.
I would strongly suggest that both groups have implementations we can
start evaluating from a design/implementation standpoint relatively
soon. Ideally both groups would actually have branches in the repo that
are regularly updated with their current implementation.
While I have a great interest in seeing an autovec implementation move
forward as soon as possible after gcc-14 development opens, I have no
opinions at this point about either of the two existing implementations.
Jeff
