"juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai" <juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai> writes: > Hi, Richard. Thanks for the comments. > > Would you mind telling me whether it is possible that we can make decrement > IV support into GCC middle-end ? > > If yes, could you tell what I should do next for the patches since I am > confused that it seems the implementation of this > patch should totally be abandoned and need to rewrite the whole thing.
No, I haven't said that. Like I say, I haven't had time to review the decrementing IV part of the patch yet. But the change I mentioned earlier seemed like an unrelated fix that should go in first. I was hoping to partially unblock your work by reviewing that part in isolation rather than waiting until I had time to review the whole patch. But I guess that's just created confusion rather than been helpful, sorry. In other words: the decrementing IV patch should (I hope) be an optimisation. It shouldn't be needed for correctness. The current incrementing IVs should work for LOAD_LEN, but perhaps inefficiently. Is that right? In contrast, the change to vect_get_loop_len is a correctness fix and I can't see how RVV would work without it. Thanks, Richard
