I have a few more thoughts during the vacation: we don't really need
those fixes (work around for VL=0) *IF* we know the VL is constant or
VLMAX, and that the situation for out-loop reduction, the only thing
we need to fix is the in-loop reduction, that should be the only case
will affected.
On Fr
On 12/24/24 2:24 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
`.MASK_LEN_FOLD_LEFT_PLUS`(or `mask_len_fold_left_plus_m`) is expecting the
return value will be the start value even if the length is 0.
However current code gen in RISC-V backend is not meet that semantic, it will
result a random garbage value if lengt
> `.MASK_LEN_FOLD_LEFT_PLUS`(or `mask_len_fold_left_plus_m`) is expecting the
> return value will be the start value even if the length is 0.
>
> However current code gen in RISC-V backend is not meet that semantic, it will
> result a random garbage value if length is 0.
>
> Let example by current
`.MASK_LEN_FOLD_LEFT_PLUS`(or `mask_len_fold_left_plus_m`) is expecting the
return value will be the start value even if the length is 0.
However current code gen in RISC-V backend is not meet that semantic, it will
result a random garbage value if length is 0.
Let example by current code gen for
