On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
Yes, sure. I've just meant that it's ok to do more work for 4.9.1, too. Richard. > Uros