On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 06:08:33 GMT, Jatin Bhateja <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I briefly looked at the patch.
>> 
>> First of all, I suggest to separate the logic to handle intrinsification 
>> failures. It's not specific to the proposed enhancement and will improve 
>> handling of intrinsification failures for vector operations.
>> 
>> Speaking of proposed approach, it aligns well with current Vector API 
>> implementation practices. I agree it would be nice to automatically detect 
>> equivalent IR shapes and transform them accordingly, but if it means 
>> hard-coding the shape of `sliceTemplate` into the compiler, current proposal 
>> does look well-justified.
>
>> I briefly looked at the patch.
>> 
>> First of all, I suggest to separate the logic to handle intrinsification 
>> failures. It's not specific to the proposed enhancement and will improve 
>> handling of intrinsification failures for vector operations.
>> 
>> Speaking of proposed approach, it aligns well with current Vector API 
>> implementation practices. I agree it would be nice to automatically detect 
>> equivalent IR shapes and transform them accordingly, but if it means 
>> hard-coding the shape of `sliceTemplate` into the compiler, current proposal 
>> does look well-justified.
> 
> Thanks @iwanowww , I agree that approach to inline on intrinsic failure is 
> generic enough and can benefit other vector operations also as it may absorb 
> boxing penalties. For slice and un-slice since the fallback is completely 
> written in vector APIs it will give most benefits and that is the focus of 
> this patch.
> 
> Looking forward to your other comments on current implementation.

@jatin-bhateja I agree with @iwanowww that the PR could be split into two: One 
handling the intrinsification failure/fallback handling and other with vector 
slice optimization for x86. That might help you to get reviews on this work. I 
volunteer to review the x86 PR. Order wise, the fallback PR would need to get 
in first though.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24104#issuecomment-4163877817

Reply via email to