Tamar Christina writes:
>> >> Do you see vect_constant_defs in practice, or is this just for
>> >> completeness?
>> >> I would expect any constants to appear as direct operands. I don't
>> >> mind keeping it if it's just a belt-and-braces thing though.
>> >
>> > In the latency case where I had a
> >> Do you see vect_constant_defs in practice, or is this just for
> >> completeness?
> >> I would expect any constants to appear as direct operands. I don't
> >> mind keeping it if it's just a belt-and-braces thing though.
> >
> > In the latency case where I had allow_constants the early reject
Tamar Christina writes:
>> Tamar Christina writes:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > When determining issue rates we currently discount non-constant MLA
>> > accumulators for Advanced SIMD but don't do it for the latency.
>> >
>> > This means the costs for Advanced SIMD with a constant accumulator are
>> >
> Tamar Christina writes:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > When determining issue rates we currently discount non-constant MLA
> > accumulators for Advanced SIMD but don't do it for the latency.
> >
> > This means the costs for Advanced SIMD with a constant accumulator are
> > wrong and results in us costing S
Tamar Christina writes:
> Hi All,
>
> When determining issue rates we currently discount non-constant MLA
> accumulators
> for Advanced SIMD but don't do it for the latency.
>
> This means the costs for Advanced SIMD with a constant accumulator are wrong
> and
> results in us costing SVE and Adv
