On Jun 26, 2024, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva writes:
>> On Jun 25, 2024, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>
Richard (Sandiford), do you happen to recall why the IRC conversation
mentioned in the PR trail decided to drop it entirely, even for signed
types?
>>
>>> In the
Alexandre Oliva writes:
> On Jun 25, 2024, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>>> Richard (Sandiford), do you happen to recall why the IRC conversation
>>> mentioned in the PR trail decided to drop it entirely, even for signed
>>> types?
>
>> In the PR, the original shift was 32768 >> x (x >= 16) on
On Jun 25, 2024, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard (Sandiford), do you happen to recall why the IRC conversation
>> mentioned in the PR trail decided to drop it entirely, even for signed
>> types?
> In the PR, the original shift was 32768 >> x (x >= 16) on ints, which the
> vectoriser was
Alexandre Oliva writes:
> On Jun 24, 2024, "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" wrote:
>
>> A signed shift right on a 16-bit vector element by 15 would still
>> yield -1
>
> Yeah. Indeed, ISTM that we *could* have retained the clamping
> transformation for *signed* shifts, since the clamping would only
On Jun 24, 2024, "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" wrote:
> A signed shift right on a 16-bit vector element by 15 would still
> yield -1
Yeah. Indeed, ISTM that we *could* have retained the clamping
transformation for *signed* shifts, since the clamping would only make a
difference in case of
On 24/06/2024 12:35, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2024, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
>>> How about mentioning Christophe's simplification in the commit log?
>
>> For the avoidance of doubt: it's OK for me (but you don't need to
>> mention my name in fact ;-)
>
> Needing or not, I added it
On Jun 21, 2024, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> How about mentioning Christophe's simplification in the commit log?
> For the avoidance of doubt: it's OK for me (but you don't need to
> mention my name in fact ;-)
Needing or not, I added it ;-)
>> > be accepted. (int16_t)32768 >> (int16_t)16 must
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 12:14, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 21/06/2024 08:57, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 20, 2024, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe using
> >> if ((unsigned)b[i] >= BITS) \
> >> would be clearer?
> >
> > Heh. Why make it simpler if we can make it unreadable,
On 21/06/2024 08:57, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2024, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
>> Maybe using
>> if ((unsigned)b[i] >= BITS) \
>> would be clearer?
>
> Heh. Why make it simpler if we can make it unreadable, right? :-D
>
> Thanks, here's another version I've just retested on
On Jun 20, 2024, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Maybe using
> if ((unsigned)b[i] >= BITS) \
> would be clearer?
Heh. Why make it simpler if we can make it unreadable, right? :-D
Thanks, here's another version I've just retested on x-arm-eabi. Ok?
I'm not sure how to credit your suggestion. It's
10 matches
Mail list logo
