On Wed, 27 Sep 2023, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>
>
> On 26/09/2023 17:37, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> > I don't have authority to approve anything, but here's a review anyway.
> >
> > Thanks for working on this.
>
> Thank you for reviewing and apologies for the mess of a patch, may have rushed
> it ;)
> >
> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-19.c
> >> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-19.c
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index
> >> 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..09127b8cb6f2e3699b6073591f58be7047330273
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-simd-clone-19.c
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
> >> +/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_simd_clones } */
> >> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> >> +/* { dg-additional-options "-fopenmp-simd" } */
> >> +
> >
> > Do you need -fopenmp-simd for this?
> Nope, I keep forgetting that you only need it for pragmas.
>
> Dealt with the other comments too.
The patch is OK.
> Any thoughts on changing gimple_call_internal_fn instead? My main argument
> against is that IFN_MASK_CALL should not appear outside of ifconvert and
> vectorizer. On the other hand, we may inspect the flags elsewhere in the
> vectorizer (now or in the future) and changing gimple_call_internal_fn would
> prevent the need to handle the IFN separately elsewhere.
But gimple_call_internal_fn is only half of the work since arguments are
shifted. So I think handling this in if-conversion and the vectorizer
is the right thing as it's a very short-lived IFN.
Richard.
> Kind Regards,
> Andre
>
--
Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH,
Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany;
GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)
