https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112438
JuzheZhong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112438
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Pan Li :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb906061e10662280f602886c3659ac1c7522a37
commit r14-5326-gfb906061e10662280f602886c3659ac1c7522a37
Author: Juzhe-Zhong
Date: Fri Nov 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112438
--- Comment #13 from JuzheZhong ---
Hi, kito.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/635688.html
Candidate patch to fix this.
Could you comment and give more explanation to Richards since I don't think I
can explain it bette
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112438
--- Comment #12 from Kito Cheng ---
oh, yeah, you are right, it already take a5 to splat, so it's right, and as you
said it must be VLMAX, unless it AVL prorogation for both splat and the
following vadd.vv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112438
--- Comment #11 from JuzheZhong ---
Why the splat can't be VLMAX ?
I think it must be VLMAX, otherwise, it could be wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112438
--- Comment #10 from Kito Cheng ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #9)
> I have a draft patch to fix it:
>
> foo:
> ble a0,zero,.L5
> vsetvli a5,zero,e32,m1,ta,ma
> vid.v v2
> .L3:
> vsetvli a5,a0,e32,m1,ta,m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112438
--- Comment #9 from JuzheZhong ---
I have a draft patch to fix it:
foo:
ble a0,zero,.L5
vsetvli a5,zero,e32,m1,ta,ma
vid.v v2
.L3:
vsetvli a5,a0,e32,m1,ta,ma
sllia4,a5,2
vle32.v v3,0(a1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112438
--- Comment #8 from Kito Cheng ---
> Oh. I understand it now. I think it's a bug.
>
> And.. I just take a look at my internal LLVM...
> Also has same issue
>
> I think we need to adapt the Gimple IR here:
>
> _35 = .SELECT_VL (ivtmp_33,
