gcc-patches
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] VECT: Support loop len control on EXTRACT_LAST
vectorization
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023, ??? wrote:
> Hi, Richard.
>
> >> I'm a bit behind of email, but why isn't BIT_FIELD_REF enough for
> >> the case that the patch is handling?
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023, ??? wrote:
> Hi, Richard.
>
> >> I'm a bit behind of email, but why isn't BIT_FIELD_REF enough for
> >> the case that the patch is handling? It seems that:
>
> >> .EXTRACT_LAST (len, vec)
>
> >> is equivalent to:
>
> >> vec[len - 1]
>
> >> I think eventually there'll
Hi, Richard.
>> I'm a bit behind of email, but why isn't BIT_FIELD_REF enough for
>> the case that the patch is handling? It seems that:
>> .EXTRACT_LAST (len, vec)
>> is equivalent to:
>> vec[len - 1]
>> I think eventually there'll be the temptation to lower/fold it like that.
Current B
s as well we could just subtract
>> SLP_TREE_LANES (node) - slp_index from it? I'll note we don't
handle ncopies > 1 which I think we could with using FOLD_EXTRACT_LAST?
For SLP stuff, I am not sure.
And I agree that we need to wait for Richard S review.
Thanks.
juzhe.zh..
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023, juzhe.zh...@rivai.ai wrote:
> Hi, Richi.
>
> >> that should be
>
> >> || (!LOOP_VINFO_FULLY_MASKED_P (loop_vinfo)
> >> && !LOOP_VINFO_FULLY_WITH_LENGTH_P (loop_vinfo))
>
> >> I think. It seems to imply that SLP isn't supported with
> >> masking/lengthing.
>
> Oh, y
Hi, Richi.
>> that should be
>> || (!LOOP_VINFO_FULLY_MASKED_P (loop_vinfo)
>> && !LOOP_VINFO_FULLY_WITH_LENGTH_P (loop_vinfo))
>> I think. It seems to imply that SLP isn't supported with
>> masking/lengthing.
Oh, yes. At first glance, the original code is quite suspicious and your
c
