On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 03:10:00PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> The linear() clauses are basically constraints on the caller side?
Not just that, they are part of the calling convention as well.
Normal arguments (i.e. non-linear non-uniform) are passed as vector
(or several vectors), uniform are passed as scalars and linear as well,
though there are various variants of linear. To some extent, uniform
is like linear with step 0, although uniform can be used even on
non-integral arguments.
So, on the caller side it is a constraint, and if the constraint
is satisfied, also something that should be honored during the vectorization
of the call argument.
> Likewise uniform()? I suppose a linear() or uniform() clause arg
> can be handled as normal vector in the SIMD function, but not all
> normal vector arguments can be handled with linar() or uniform)
> SIMD function?
>
> Looking I also see that while we attempt to support SLP for SIMD calls
> we do not handle uniform()/linear() correctly there. I'll fix that.
>
> I'm not sure same "badness" is a good measure for compatibility, but
> yes, I'd like to pick a pair of clones that only differ in
> inbranch vs. notinbranch, if only for simplicity at this point.
Ah, sure, if you'd tried to remember parts of what you found in simdclone,
you'd need to remember it twice. Or simply redo it during the transform
phase again?
Jakub
