Tamar Christina writes:
> Hi All,
>
> Consider low overhead loops like:
>
> void
> foo (char *restrict a, int *restrict b, int *restrict c, int n)
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < 9; i++)
> {
> int res = c[i];
> int t = b[i];
> if (a[i] != 0)
> res = t;
> c[i] = res;
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH]AArch64: Take into account when VF is higher than known
>> scalar iters
>>
>> Tamar Christina writes:
>> >>
>> >> So my gut instinct is that we should instead tweak the condition for
>> >> using latency costs, but
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 3:48 PM
> To: Tamar Christina
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd ; Richard Earnshaw
> ; Marcus Shawcroft
> ; ktkac...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH]AArch64: Take into account when
Tamar Christina writes:
>>
>> So my gut instinct is that we should instead tweak the condition for
>> using latency costs, but I'll need to think about it more when I get
>> back from holiday.
>>
>
> I think that's a separate problem.. From first principals it should already
> be very wrong to c
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 3:02 PM
> To: Tamar Christina
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd ; Richard Earnshaw
> ; Marcus Shawcroft
> ; ktkac...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH]AArch64: Take into account when
Tamar Christina writes:
> Hi All,
>
> Consider low overhead loops like:
>
> void
> foo (char *restrict a, int *restrict b, int *restrict c, int n)
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < 9; i++)
> {
> int res = c[i];
> int t = b[i];
> if (a[i] != 0)
> res = t;
> c[i] = res;
