e (Arm)
Thank you :)
LGTM otherwise (but I don't have the power to approve this ;)).
Kind regards,
Andre
From: Stamatis Markianos-Wright
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 11:36 AM
To: Stamatis Markianos-Wright via Gcc-patches; Richard Earnshaw;
Richard Sandifor
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
> @
egards,
Andre
From: Stamatis Markianos-Wright
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 11:36 AM
To: Stamatis Markianos-Wright via Gcc-patches; Richard Earnshaw;
Richard Sandiford; Kyrylo Tkachov
Subject: [PING][PATCH 2/2] arm: Add support for MVE Tail-Predicat
__
From: Stamatis Markianos-Wright
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 11:36 AM
To: Stamatis Markianos-Wright via Gcc-patches; Richard Earnshaw; Richard
Sandiford; Kyrylo Tkachov
Subject: [PING][PATCH 2/2] arm: Add support for MVE Tail-Predicated Low
Overhead Loops
Pinging back to the top of review
Pinging back to the top of reviewers' inboxes due to worry about Stage 1
End in a few days :)
See the last email for the latest version of the 2/2 patch. The 1/2
patch is A-Ok from Kyrill's earlier target-backend review.
On 10/11/2023 12:41, Stamatis Markianos-Wright wrote:
On 06/11/2023
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
> Ov
12 matches
Mail list logo
