On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 15:21, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> Unfortunately, the patch regressed following tests on ppc64le and
> >> armhf respectively:
> >> gcc.target/powerpc/vec-perm-ctor.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized
> >> "VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR"
> >> gcc.dg/tree-ssa
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> Unfortunately, the patch regressed following tests on ppc64le and
>> armhf respectively:
>> gcc.target/powerpc/vec-perm-ctor.c scan-tree-dump-not optimized
>> "VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR"
>> gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-20.c scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "VEC_PERM_EXPR"
>>
>> This
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 16:59, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 at 18:23, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> >
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 21:27, Richard Sandiford
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > >> >> static bool
> > >> >>
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 at 18:23, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 21:27, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> >> static bool
> >> >> is_simple_vla_size (poly_uint64 size)
> >> >> {
> >> >> if (size.is_constant
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 21:27, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> >> static bool
>> >> is_simple_vla_size (poly_uint64 size)
>> >> {
>> >> if (size.is_constant ())
>> >> return false;
>> >> for (int i = 1; i < ARRAY_SIZE (size.coe
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 21:27, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> static bool
> >> is_simple_vla_size (poly_uint64 size)
> >> {
> >> if (size.is_constant ())
> >> return false;
> >> for (int i = 1; i < ARRAY_SIZE (size.coeffs); ++i)
> >> if (size[i] != (i <=
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> static bool
>> is_simple_vla_size (poly_uint64 size)
>> {
>> if (size.is_constant ())
>> return false;
>> for (int i = 1; i < ARRAY_SIZE (size.coeffs); ++i)
>> if (size[i] != (i <= 1 ? size[0] : 0))
> Just wondering is this should be (i == 1 ? size[0] : 0
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 15:27, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 20:36, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Full review this time, sorry for the skipping the tests earlier.
> > Thanks for the detailed review! Please find my responses inline below
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 20:36, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Full review this time, sorry for the skipping the tests earlier.
> Thanks for the detailed review! Please find my responses inline below.
>>
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> > diff --git a/gcc/fold-const
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 20:36, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Full review this time, sorry for the skipping the tests earlier.
Thanks for the detailed review! Please find my responses inline below.
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.cc b/gcc/fold-const.cc
> > index 7e5494
Full review this time, sorry for the skipping the tests earlier.
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.cc b/gcc/fold-const.cc
> index 7e5494dfd39..680d0e54fd4 100644
> --- a/gcc/fold-const.cc
> +++ b/gcc/fold-const.cc
> @@ -85,6 +85,10 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 18:46, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Sandiford writes:
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 18:25, Richard Sandiford
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the rework and sorry for the slow review.
> >> Hi Richard,
> >> Thanks for
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 18:25, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the rework and sorry for the slow review.
>> Hi Richard,
>> Thanks for the suggestions! Please find my responses inline below.
>>>
>>> Prathamesh K
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 18:25, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for the rework and sorry for the slow review.
> Hi Richard,
> Thanks for the suggestions! Please find my responses inline below.
>>
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>> > Hi Richard,
>> >
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 18:25, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the rework and sorry for the slow review.
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the suggestions! Please find my responses inline below.
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > Hi Richard,
> > This is reworking of patch to extend fold_vec
Hi,
Thanks for the rework and sorry for the slow review.
Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> Hi Richard,
> This is reworking of patch to extend fold_vec_perm to handle VLA vectors.
> The attached patch unifies handling of VLS and VLA vector_csts, while
> using fallback code
> for ctors.
>
> For VLS ve
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 at 17:44, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
> This is reworking of patch to extend fold_vec_perm to handle VLA vectors.
> The attached patch unifies handling of VLS and VLA vector_csts, while
> using fallback code
> for ctors.
>
> For VLS vector, the patch ignores unde
Hi Richard,
This is reworking of patch to extend fold_vec_perm to handle VLA vectors.
The attached patch unifies handling of VLS and VLA vector_csts, while
using fallback code
for ctors.
For VLS vector, the patch ignores underlying encoding, and
uses npatterns = nelts, and nelts_per_pattern = 1.
18 matches
Mail list logo