This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: generic vectors: how should they work?


On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 04:47:00PM -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:49:21AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > >>>>> Paolo Bonzini writes:
> > 
> > >> I think part of the problem is that the term "generic vector" is
> > >> being used for both arbitrary size vectors and synthetic (portable?) SIMD
> > >> modes.
> > 
> > Paolo> There are *no* synthetic SIMD modes.  SIMD modes are not used unless 
> > Paolo> supported by the hardware, and that's the change that prompted my famous
> > Paolo> patch.
> > 
> > 	Either we are not using the term "synthetic SIMD mode" for the
> > same purpose or that comment is incorrect.
> 
> What's the right term for each of these?

How about these?
 
>   1) a vector type that is directly supported by the hardware (vector
>      size and base type)

       hardware SIMD type

>   2) a vector type that can be composed of multiple hardware-supported
>      vectors (larger than hardware vector size, base type is supported)

       synthetic SIMD type

>   3) any other vector type (too small or else base type is not
>      supported by hardware vectors)

       software vector type (need something better for this one)

>   4) a type with attribute vector_size as described in the GCC Manual,
>      which might be any of the above depending on how it is compiled

       generic vector

Janis


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]