On 30/11/2023 12:55, Stamatis Markianos-Wright wrote:
Hi Andre,
Thanks for the comments, see latest revision attached.
On 27/11/2023 12:47, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Hi Stam,
Just some comments.
+/* Recursively scan through the DF chain backwards within the basic
block and
+ determin
Sorry for the slow review.
Stamatis Markianos-Wright writes:
> [...]
> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/mve.md b/gcc/config/arm/mve.md
> index
> 44a04b86cb5806fcf50917826512fd203d42106c..c083f965fa9a40781bc86beb6e63654afd14eac4
> 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/arm/mve.md
> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/mve.md
> @
Thanks for addressing my comments. I have reviewed this and the other
patch before and they LGTM. I however do not have approval rights so you
will need the OK from a maintainer.
Thanks for doing this :)
Andre
On 30/11/2023 12:55, Stamatis Markianos-Wright wrote:
Hi Andre,
Thanks for the co
Hi Stam,
Just some comments.
+/* Recursively scan through the DF chain backwards within the basic
block and
+ determine if any of the USEs of the original insn (or the USEs of
the insns
s/Recursively scan/Scan/ as you no longer recurse, thanks for that by
the way :) + where thy were DEF-e
On 06/11/2023 11:24, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Stamatis Markianos-Wright writes:
One of the main reasons for reading the arm bits was to try to answer
the question: if we switch to a downcounting loop with a GE condition,
how do we make sure that the start value is not a large unsigned
number
Stamatis Markianos-Wright writes:
>> One of the main reasons for reading the arm bits was to try to answer
>> the question: if we switch to a downcounting loop with a GE condition,
>> how do we make sure that the start value is not a large unsigned
>> number that is interpreted as negative by GE?
Sorry for the slow review. I had a look at the arm bits too, to get
some context for the target-independent bits.
Stamatis Markianos-Wright via Gcc-patches writes:
> [...]
> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm-protos.h b/gcc/config/arm/arm-protos.h
> index 77e76336e94..74186930f0b 100644
> --- a/gcc
Ping for Jeff or another global maintainer to review the target agnostic
bits of this, that's:
loop-doloop.cc
df-core.{c,h}
I do have a nitpick myself that I missed last time around:
/* We expect the condition to be of the form (reg != 0) */
cond = XEXP (SET_SRC (cmp), 0);
-
Hi all,
On 28/09/2023 13:51, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Hi,
On 14/09/2023 13:10, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi Stam,
The arm parts look sensible but we'd need review for the df-core.h
and df-core.cc changes.
Maybe Jeff can help or can recommend someone to take a look?
Just
Hi,
On 14/09/2023 13:10, Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi Stam,
The arm parts look sensible but we'd need review for the df-core.h and
df-core.cc changes.
Maybe Jeff can help or can recommend someone to take a look?
Thanks,
Kyrill
FWIW the changes LGTM, if we don't want these in
Hi Stam,
> -Original Message-
> From: Stam Markianos-Wright
> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 6:19 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Kyrylo Tkachov ; Richard Earnshaw
>
> Subject: [PING][PATCH 2/2] arm: Add support for MVE Tail-Predicated Low
> Overhead Loops
>
> Hi all,
>
> Th
11 matches
Mail list logo
