On Thu, 19 Sep 2024, Robin Dapp wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > The following restores the use of .SELECT_VL for testcases where it > > > is safe to use even when using SLP. I've for now restricted it > > > to single-lane SLP plus optimistically allow store-lane nodes > > > and assume single-lane roots are not widened but at most to > > > load-lane who should be fine. > > > > > > v2 fixes latent issues in vectorizable_load/store. > > > > > > Bootstrap and regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. > > > > So while this fixes the earlier observed 80 regressions from not using > > SLP this now introduces many more from the CI (800), all in other > > scan-assembler tests where after checking a sample of one (sic!) > > we seem to use .SELECT_VL more now but expect not to. Unfortunately > > none of the affected tests are runtime tests but at least for the > > single test I investigated there is nothing wrong with using .SELECT_VL. > > > > I've checked the full CI results and as far I can see there are no > > execute fails caused by this patch (I have locally done a full > > check-gcc as well with a similar result). > > > > So I'm asking for explicit approval here. > > > > OK for trunk? > > Odd. With my testing, rv64 only though, I haven't observed any > additional fallout. But the CI knows better, usually. > > While I worked on my patch (which ended up looking similar to yours) I also > noticed that some examples now use SELECT_VL where we didn't before, and, > they appeared reasonable to me. Definitely saw no execution failures either. > > So, I'd say let's go ahead. Once it is in we can deal with the fallout. > Same as the LOAD_LANES fallout that I wanted to take care of as soon as > our internal matters permit. > Thanks for fixing it.
r15-3712-g5e3a4a01785e2d Richard.
