On Tue, 30 May 2023, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
> >> But how easy would it be to extend SCEV analysis, via a pattern match?
> >> The evolution of the IV phi wrt the inner loop is still a normal SCEV.
> >
> > No, the IV isn't a normal SCEV, the final value is different.
>
>
he.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Richard Biener
Date: 2023-05-30 17:50
To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
CC: gcc-patches; richard.sandiford; linkw
Subject: Re: Re: decremnt IV patch create fails on PowerPC
On Tue, 30 May 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> Ok.
>
> It seems that for this conditions:
>
Richard Biener writes:
>> But how easy would it be to extend SCEV analysis, via a pattern match?
>> The evolution of the IV phi wrt the inner loop is still a normal SCEV.
>
> No, the IV isn't a normal SCEV, the final value is different.
Which part of the IV though? Won't all executions of the la
On Tue, 30 May 2023, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> My understanding was that we went into this knowing that the IVs
> would defeat SCEV analysis. Apparently that wasn't a problem for RVV,
> but it's not surprising that it is a problem in general.
>
> This isn't just about SELECT_VL though. We use
My understanding was that we went into this knowing that the IVs
would defeat SCEV analysis. Apparently that wasn't a problem for RVV,
but it's not surprising that it is a problem in general.
This isn't just about SELECT_VL though. We use the same type of IV
for cases what aren't going to use SE
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai; gcc-patches; richard.sandiford
Subject: Re: decremnt IV patch create fails on PowerPC
On Tue, 30 May 2023, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2023/5/30 17:26, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> > Ok.
> >
> > It seems that for this conditions:
> >
> > + /* If
On Tue, 30 May 2023, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2023/5/30 17:26, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> > Ok.
> >
> > It seems that for this conditions:
> >
> > + /* If we're vectorizing a loop that uses length "controls" and
> > + can iterate more than once, we apply decrementing IV approach
> > + i
not familiar with SCEV and I am not sure how to do that SCEV can
analysis the decrement IV.
juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
From: Richard Biener
Date: 2023-05-30 17:50
To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
CC: gcc-patches; richard.sandiford; linkw
Subject: Re: Re: decremnt IV patch create fails on PowerPC
O
on 2023/5/30 17:26, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> Ok.
>
> It seems that for this conditions:
>
> + /* If we're vectorizing a loop that uses length "controls" and
> + can iterate more than once, we apply decrementing IV approach
> + in loop control. */
> + if (LOOP_VINFO_CAN_USE_PARTIAL
Thanks.
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> From: Richard Biener
> Date: 2023-05-30 17:22
> To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
> CC: gcc-patches; richard.sandiford; linkw
> Subject: Re: Re: decremnt IV patch create fails on PowerPC
> On Fri, 26 May 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
Biener
Date: 2023-05-30 17:22
To: juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
CC: gcc-patches; richard.sandiford; linkw
Subject: Re: Re: decremnt IV patch create fails on PowerPC
On Fri, 26 May 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> Hi, Richi. Thanks for your analysis and helps.
>
> >> We could simp
> I think Richard may help to explain decrement IV more clearly.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai
>
> From: Richard Biener
> Date: 2023-05-26 14:46
> To: ???
> CC: gcc-patches; richard.sandiford; linkw
> Subject: Re: decremnt IV patch create fails o
richard.sandiford; linkw
Subject: Re: decremnt IV patch create fails on PowerPC
On Fri, 26 May 2023, ??? wrote:
> Yesterday's patch has been approved (decremnt IV support):
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/619663.html
>
> However, it creates fails on PowerPC:
On Fri, 26 May 2023, ??? wrote:
> Yesterday's patch has been approved (decremnt IV support):
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/619663.html
>
> However, it creates fails on PowerPC:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
>
> I am really sorry for causing inconv
Yesterday's patch has been approved (decremnt IV support):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/619663.html
However, it creates fails on PowerPC:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109971
I am really sorry for causing inconvinience.
I wonder as we disccussed:
+ /* If w
15 matches
Mail list logo
