> I'm not sure how this is different to just deleting the > zero-initializer, which is what I already tested and found some random > behaviour?
The difference is in the else-operand predicate. So unless there are more bugs we should only have added VCOND_EXPRs for the cases where they are absolutely necessary and not unconditionally as currently done in the gcn backend. > Is this just a way to pass "undefined" to a pattern? > > > Anyway, I have some tests running, so we'll see what happens. Yep, that's how we tell the vectorizer to expect and undefined value in the inactive elements. Did your tests return any reasonable result? -- Regards Robin
