Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Split VF iterators for Zvfh(min).

On 6/22/23 07:03, Robin Dapp wrote: Hi, when working on FP widening/narrowing I realized the Zvfhmin handling is not ideal right now: We use the "enabled" insn attribute to disable instructions not available with Zvfhmin (but only with Zvfh). However, "enabled == 0" only disables insn alter

Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Split VF iterators for Zvfh(min).

[PATCH] RISC-V: Split VF iterators for Zvfh(min). Just curious about the combine pass you mentioned, not very sure my understand is correct but it looks like the combine pass totally ignore the iterator requirement? It is sort of surprise to me as the combine pass may also need the informati

RE: [PATCH] RISC-V: Split VF iterators for Zvfh(min).

y available but that's not > a battle I'm willing to fight 😃 Pan -Original Message- From: Robin Dapp Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2023 10:31 PM To: Li, Pan2 ; 钟居哲 ; gcc-patches ; palmer ; kito.cheng ; Jeff Law Cc: rdapp....@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Split V

Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Split VF iterators for Zvfh(min).

> Just curious about the combine pass you mentioned, not very sure my > understand is correct but it looks like the combine pass totally > ignore the iterator requirement? > > It is sort of surprise to me as the combine pass may also need the > information of iterators. combine tries to match ins

RE: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Split VF iterators for Zvfh(min).

, June 22, 2023 9:37 PM To: rdapp.gcc ; gcc-patches ; palmer ; kito.cheng ; Li, Pan2 ; Jeff Law Cc: rdapp.gcc Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Split VF iterators for Zvfh(min). Oh. I see. I think I am wrong. Sorry for that :). load/store are using 'V' iterators. This patch looks reason

Re: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Split VF iterators for Zvfh(min).

rdapp.gcc Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Split VF iterators for Zvfh(min). > I don't understand why it is necessary to bother "VF". "VF” should > not be changed since intrinsic stuff is quite stable and any > unreasonable changes are unacceptable. Ok, I hear your concern.

Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Split VF iterators for Zvfh(min).

> I don't understand why it is necessary to bother "VF". "VF” should > not be changed since intrinsic stuff is quite stable and any > unreasonable changes are unacceptable. Ok, I hear your concern. My argument is: Currently our mechanism of disabling instructions is incorrect and if any of the VF

Re: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Split VF iterators for Zvfh(min).

xei/vlse/vsse. juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai From: Robin Dapp Date: 2023-06-22 21:22 To: 钟居哲; gcc-patches; palmer; kito.cheng; pan2.li; Jeff Law CC: rdapp.gcc Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Split VF iterators for Zvfh(min). > You change "VF" constraint as "TARGET_ZVFH" which is incorr

Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Split VF iterators for Zvfh(min).

> You change "VF" constraint as "TARGET_ZVFH" which is incorrect since > we a lot of instructions are valid in "TARGET_ZVFHMIN" in vector.md > but you disabled them in this patch. You disabled them unexpectedly. Yes that was kind of the point :) IMHO all the :VF insns are actually only valid in

Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Split VF iterators for Zvfh(min).

You change "VF" constraint as "TARGET_ZVFH" which is incorrect since we a lot of instructions are valid in "TARGET_ZVFHMIN" in vector.md but you disabled them in this patch. You disabled them unexpectedly. juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai From: Robin Dapp Date: 2023-06-22 21:03 To: gcc-patches; palmer;