Thanks Robin. > Heh, the diff is a bit misleading because the nmsac and macc patterns are > almost identical.
Should be git diff issue, I notice this before send it out. > In principle LGTM but why the renaming to mul_then_plus? Does it refer > to one of the overwriting variants? But the pattern matches both vmacc and > vmadd? The madd and macc can merged into one combine define_expand as well as define_insn, so rename it to mul_then_plus (and add madd part for define_insn) to indicate the correct sematics. But not very sure why diff like this ... Pan -----Original Message----- From: Robin Dapp <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 7:20 PM To: Li, Pan2 <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Chen, Ken <[email protected]>; Liu, Hongtao <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] RISC-V: Combine vec_duplicate + vmadd.vv to vmadd.vx on GR2VR cost > From: Pan Li <[email protected]> > > This patch would like to combine the vec_duplicate + vmadd.vv to the > vmadd.vx. From example as below code. The related pattern will depend > on the cost of vec_duplicate from GR2VR. Then the late-combine will > take action if the cost of GR2VR is zero, and reject the combination > if the GR2VR cost is greater than zero. Heh, the diff is a bit misleading because the nmsac and macc patterns are almost identical. In principle LGTM but why the renaming to mul_then_plus? Does it refer to one of the overwriting variants? But the pattern matches both vmacc and vmadd? -- Regards Robin
