On 11/7/23 21:31, Maxim Blinov wrote:
I see, thanks for clarifying, that makes sense.
In that case, what about doing the inverse? I mean, are there unique
patches in the vendor branch, and would it be useful to try to
upstream them into master? My motivation is to get the best
autovectorized
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 8:33 PM Maxim Blinov via Gcc wrote:
>
> I see, thanks for clarifying, that makes sense.
>
> In that case, what about doing the inverse? I mean, are there unique
> patches in the vendor branch, and would it be useful to try to
> upstream them into master? My motivation is to
nce I think I have support all middle-end features of rvv-next.
We are analyzing, and trying to figure out why. We must recover back the
performance on GCC-14.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Maxim Blinov
Date: 2023-11-08 12:31
To: Jeff Law
CC: gcc; kito.cheng; juzhe.zhong
Subject: Re: Lots of FAI
I see, thanks for clarifying, that makes sense.
In that case, what about doing the inverse? I mean, are there unique
patches in the vendor branch, and would it be useful to try to
upstream them into master? My motivation is to get the best
autovectorized code for RISC-V.
I had a go at building th
On 11/7/23 05:50, Maxim Blinov wrote:
Hi all,
I can see about 500 failing tests on the
vendors/riscv/gcc-13-with-riscv-opts, a mostly-full list at the bottom
of this email. It's mostly test cases scraping for vector
instructions.
Correct. There are generic vectorizer changes that would need
Hi all,
I can see about 500 failing tests on the
vendors/riscv/gcc-13-with-riscv-opts, a mostly-full list at the bottom
of this email. It's mostly test cases scraping for vector
instructions.
However, these tests all pass on master. Presumably the vendor branch
failures can all be fixed by cherry
