On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Richard Biener writes:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Normally we adjust the vector loop so that i
Richard Biener writes:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
Normally we adjust the vector loop so that it iterates:
(original number of scalar iterations - num
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Normally we adjust the vector loop so that it iterates:
>>>
>>>(original number of scalar iterations - number of peels) / VF
>>>
>>> times,
Richard Biener writes:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Normally we adjust the vector loop so that it iterates:
>>
>>(original number of scalar iterations - number of peels) / VF
>>
>> times, enforcing this using an IV that starts at zero and increments
>> by o
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Normally we adjust the vector loop so that it iterates:
>
>(original number of scalar iterations - number of peels) / VF
>
> times, enforcing this using an IV that starts at zero and increments
> by one each iteration. However, divid
Normally we adjust the vector loop so that it iterates:
(original number of scalar iterations - number of peels) / VF
times, enforcing this using an IV that starts at zero and increments
by one each iteration. However, dividing by VF would be expensive
for variable VF, so this patch adds an a