On Wednesday, 27 March 2024 10:50:41 CET Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> As discussed on IRC, please push the revised patch with your
> suggestions incorporated (and post to the lists for posterity).
The patch as pushed is attached.
--
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 at 12:13, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Matthias Kretz writes:
> > On Wednesday, 27 March 2024 11:07:14 CET Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> I'm still worried about:
> >>
> >> #if _GLIBCXX_SIMD_HAVE_SVE
> >> constexpr inline int __sve_vectorized_size_bytes =
Matthias Kretz writes:
> On Wednesday, 27 March 2024 11:07:14 CET Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> I'm still worried about:
>>
>> #if _GLIBCXX_SIMD_HAVE_SVE
>> constexpr inline int __sve_vectorized_size_bytes = __ARM_FEATURE_SVE_BITS
>> / 8; #else
>> constexpr inline int
On Wednesday, 27 March 2024 11:07:14 CET Richard Sandiford wrote:
> I'm still worried about:
>
> #if _GLIBCXX_SIMD_HAVE_SVE
> constexpr inline int __sve_vectorized_size_bytes = __ARM_FEATURE_SVE_BITS
> / 8; #else
> constexpr inline int __sve_vectorized_size_bytes = 0;
> #endif
>
> and
Jonathan Wakely writes:
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 09:58, Matthias Kretz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I applied and did extended testing on x86_64 (no regressions) and aarch64
>> using qemu testing SVE 256, 512, and 1024. Looks good!
>>
>> While going through the applied patch I noticed a few style issues
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 09:58, Matthias Kretz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I applied and did extended testing on x86_64 (no regressions) and aarch64
> using qemu testing SVE 256, 512, and 1024. Looks good!
>
> While going through the applied patch I noticed a few style issues that I
> simply turned into a
Hi,
I applied and did extended testing on x86_64 (no regressions) and aarch64
using qemu testing SVE 256, 512, and 1024. Looks good!
While going through the applied patch I noticed a few style issues that I
simply turned into a patch (attached).
A few comments inline. Sorry for not seeing
Hi,
Thanks for review @Richard!. I have tried to address most of your comments in
this patch.
The major updates include optimizing operator[] for masks, find_first_set and
find_last_set.
My further comments on some of the pointed out issues are
a. regarding the coverage of types supported for
