Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Refine the condition for add additional vars in RVV cost model

On 3/28/24 4:31 AM, demin.han wrote: The adjacent_dr_p is sufficient and unnecessary condition for contiguous access. So unnecessary live-ranges are added and result in spill. This patch uses MEMORY_ACCESS_TYPE as condition and constrains segment load/store. Tested on RV64 and no regression.

RE: RE: [PATCH] RISC-V: Refine the condition for add additional vars in RVV cost model

OK，I will spilt them. Thanks. From: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai Sent: 2024年3月28日 19:11 To: Demin Han ; gcc-patches Cc: kito.cheng ; pan2.li ; jeffreyalaw ; Robin Dapp Subject: 回复: RE: [PATCH] RISC-V: Refine the condition for add additional vars in RVV cost model OK. It's an obvious fix b

回复: RE: [PATCH] RISC-V: Refine the condition for add additional vars in RVV cost model

yalaw ; Robin Dapp Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Refine the condition for add additional vars in RVV cost model Thanks a lot for trying to optimize the dynamic LMUL cost model. The need_additional_vector_vars_p looks good to me. But - = (*program_points_per_bb.get (bb)).length (

RE: [PATCH] RISC-V: Refine the condition for add additional vars in RVV cost model

condition for add additional vars in RVV cost model Thanks a lot for trying to optimize the dynamic LMUL cost model. The need_additional_vector_vars_p looks good to me. But - = (*program_points_per_bb.get (bb)).length () - 1; + = (*program_points_per_bb.get (bb)).length

Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Refine the condition for add additional vars in RVV cost model

Thanks a lot for trying to optimize the dynamic LMUL cost model. The need_additional_vector_vars_p looks good to me. But - = (*program_points_per_bb.get (bb)).length () - 1; + = (*program_points_per_bb.get (bb)).length (); I wonder why you remove - 1? juzhe.zh...@ri