On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 10:12:35 GMT, Jatin Bhateja <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi @PaulSandoz , As planned all the generic portions of PR were split out of >> this PR and integrated separately into JDK mainline. What we have now is >> centered around Float16 changes. >> >> Please let me know your comments > >> @jatin-bhateja Now that the Vector API fuzzer is integrated (and active for >> at least AVX2), it would be good if you also added the new Float16 methods >> to that fuzzer, so we can have confidence about correctness from the >> beginning :) >> >> #28873 > > Thanks @eme64 , I have created a JBS entry for this > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8381809 which we can take up separately > from this pull request. Please feel free to contribute > > > @jatin-bhateja Now that the Vector API fuzzer is integrated (and active > > > for at least AVX2), it would be good if you also added the new Float16 > > > methods to that fuzzer, so we can have confidence about correctness from > > > the beginning :) > > > #28873 > > > > > > Thanks @eme64 , I have created a JBS entry for this > > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8381809 which we can take up separately > > from this pull request. Please feel free to contribute > > @jatin-bhateja I think we should make sure that we deliver the fuzzer in > tandem with this change. > > Suggestion: create a dependent PR. That way, we can already run extensive > fuzzer testing on the current patch, but keep the changes in separate PRs. > > Unfortunately, I currently don't have capacity to write the fuzzer changes. > But I'd be happy to review them. Hi @eme64 https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8381809 is created for this activity, following draft pull request extends the Template framework with Float16Vector type. https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/30997 I have tried with different seed values and multiple runs, fuzzer tests generated are passing with this pull request. Please feel free to review the draft PR and add your comments / suggestions. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28002#issuecomment-4350632315
