Hello! > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Ulrich Drepper <drep...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Your patch is correct IMHO, but maybe it worst to add all missing >>> `mm512_set1*' stuff? >>> >>> According to trunk and [1] we're still missing (beside mentioned by you) >>> _mm512_set1_epi16 and _mm512_set1_epi8 broadcasts. >> >> Yes, more are missing, but I think those will need new builtins. The >> _ps and _pd don't require additional instructions. >> >> _mm512_set1_epi16 might have to map to vpbroadcastw. _mm512_set1_epi8 >> might have to map to vpbroadcastb. I haven't seen a way to generate >> those instructions if needed and so this work was out of scope for now >> due to time constraints. I agree, they should be added as quickly as >> possible to avoid releasing headers with incomplete APIs. >> >> What is the verdict on checking these changes in? Too late for the >> next release? > > This kind of changes can also be made for 4.9.1 for example.
OTOH, these changes are isolated to intrinsic header files, and we have quite extensive testsuite for these. I see no problem to check-in these changes even at this stage. So, if there is no better solution I propose to check these changes in, since the benefit to users outweight (minor) risk. Would this be OK from RM POV, also weighting in benefits to users? Uros
