Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Generalize RET for vec logical and comparison ops #675

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

gmlueck
Copy link
Contributor

@gmlueck gmlueck commented Dec 3, 2024

This is change 8 of 9 that fix problems with the specification of the vec class. An implementation that follows the existing specification would not accept common code patterns and would not pass the CTS. None of the existing implementations actually follow the existing specification.

This change clarifies the return type for the comparison and logical operators. All of these operators return a vec of integers, where the size of the integer elements depends on the element types of the input operands. The previous wording only specified the return type for certain DataT types, leaving other types unspecified. Reword this in a general way which applies to all DataT types.

These changes correspond to slide 27 of the presentation that was discussed in the WG meetings.

This is change 8 of 9 that fix problems with the specification of the
`vec` class.  An implementation that follows the existing specification
would not accept common code patterns and would not pass the CTS.  None
of the existing implementations actually follow the existing
specification.

This change clarifies the return type for the comparison and logical
operators.  All of these operators return a vec of integers, where the
size of the integer elements depends on the element types of the input
operands.  The previous wording only specified the return type for
certain `DataT` types, leaving other types unspecified.  Reword this in
a general way which applies to all `DataT` types.

These changes correspond to slide 27 of the presentation that was
discussed in the WG meetings.
Copy link
Member

@keryell keryell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good simplification.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants