[PATCH] D99750: [LV, VP]VP intrinsics support for the Loop Vectorizer

[Alexey Bataev via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

ABataev added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/RISCV/vectorize-vp-intrinsics.ll:7
+
+; RUN: opt -passes=loop-vectorize \
+; RUN: -prefer-predicate-with-vp-intrinsics=force-explicit-vector-length-support \
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> fhahn wrote:
> > Can this configuration be used for target-independent tests?
> Not now, it relies on the check of the TTI interface for now
Added several target independent tests


================
Comment at: llvm/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/RISCV/vectorize-vp-intrinsics.ll:385
+
+define void @masked_loadstore(ptr noalias %a, ptr noalias %b, i64 %n) {
+; IF-EVL-LABEL: @masked_loadstore(
----------------
fhahn wrote:
> This test file is getting quite big with 3 different run lines. I think it would be good to try to split this up a bit, to make it easier to see what's going on.
> 
> I'd recommend having the test cases for various legality issues as target-independent tests with force flags (force EVL support, VF and IC). And keep cost-model specific tests target specific.
Done


================
Comment at: llvm/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/RISCV/vplan-vp-intrinsics.ll:3
+
+; RUN: opt -passes=loop-vectorize -debug-only=loop-vectorize \
+; RUN: -prefer-predicate-with-vp-intrinsics=if-explicit-vector-length-support \
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> fhahn wrote:
> > Can this test be target independent? does it need to check the no VP case?
> 1. No
> 2. Yes, need to check that the option works correctly
Added also target independent version


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D99750/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D99750