Re: PR111754

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 03:56:47PM +0800, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote: > Hi, there is a regression in RISC-V caused by this patch: > > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump > optimized "return { 0.0, 9.0e\\+0, 0.0, 0.0 }" > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr111754.c scan-tree-dump

Re: PR111754

Prathamesh Kulkarni writes: > PR111754: Rework encoding of result for VEC_PERM_EXPR with constant input > vectors. > > gcc/ChangeLog: > PR middle-end/111754 > * fold-const.cc (fold_vec_perm_cst): Set result's encoding to sel's > encoding, and set res_nelts_per_pattern to 2 if se

Re: PR111754

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 03:13, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes: > > On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 09:43, Prathamesh Kulkarni > > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 04:09, Richard Sandiford > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes: > >> > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 a

Re: PR111754

Prathamesh Kulkarni writes: > On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 09:43, Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: >> >> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 04:09, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >> > >> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes: >> > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 02:58, Richard Sandiford >> > > wrote: >> > >> So I think the PR could be

Re: PR111754

On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 at 20:44, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 21:57, Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 09:43, Prathamesh Kulkarni > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 04:09, Richard Sandiford > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Prathamesh Kulkarn

Re: PR111754

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 21:57, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 09:43, Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 04:09, Richard Sandiford > > wrote: > > > > > > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes: > > > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 02:58, Richard Sandiford > > > > wrot

Re: PR111754

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 09:43, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 04:09, Richard Sandiford > wrote: > > > > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes: > > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 02:58, Richard Sandiford > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> Sorry the slow review. I clearly didn't t

Re: PR111754

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 04:09, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes: > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 02:58, Richard Sandiford > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Sorry the slow review. I clearly didn't think this through properly > >> when doing the review of the original patch, so

Re: PR111754

Prathamesh Kulkarni writes: > On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 02:58, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Sorry the slow review. I clearly didn't think this through properly >> when doing the review of the original patch, so I wanted to spend >> some time working on the code to get a better underst

Re: PR111754

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 02:58, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > Hi, > > Sorry the slow review. I clearly didn't think this through properly > when doing the review of the original patch, so I wanted to spend > some time working on the code to get a better understanding of > the problem. > > Prathamesh

Re: PR111754

Sigh, I knew I should have waited until the morning to proof-read and send this. Richard Sandiford writes: > diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.cc b/gcc/fold-const.cc > index 40767736389..00fce4945a7 100644 > --- a/gcc/fold-const.cc > +++ b/gcc/fold-const.cc > @@ -10743,27 +10743,37 @@ fold_vec_perm_cst

Re: PR111754

Hi, Sorry the slow review. I clearly didn't think this through properly when doing the review of the original patch, so I wanted to spend some time working on the code to get a better understanding of the problem. Prathamesh Kulkarni writes: > Hi, > For the following test-case: > > typedef floa