Re: Proposing more portable vector cod
toggle quoted message Show quoted text
Thanks for your comments. I apologize, but I don't fully understand your proposal, or the problem it solves. To help explain my confusion, here are two thoughts.
The supported LMUL (and EMUL) values are 2^k (k = -3:3) on all implementations, so software requesting EMUL > 8 is illegal everywhere.
I agree that we could make widening instructions more flexible by having them decrease VL (and LMUL) so that EMUL becomes valid. The fault-first loads adjust VL automatically, so this is not without some precedent. However, In my opinion, it's too much of a burden to do this manually (using vsetvli), and I don't see any portability issues with that.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 9:32 AM Joseph Rahmeh <Joseph.Rahmeh@...> wrote: