This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [patch][x86] -march=icelake
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018, Koval, Julia wrote:
> I think we may want to extend it to more than 2 ints someday, when we run out of bits again. It won't break the existing functionality if 3rd int will be zero by default. That's why I tried to avoid "two" in the name.
>
> Julia
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:jakub@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:06 PM
> > To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>; Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
> > Cc: Koval, Julia <julia.koval@intel.com>; GCC Patches <gcc-
> > patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Kirill Yukhin <kirill.yukhin@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [patch][x86] -march=icelake
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:00:26PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Koval, Julia <julia.koval@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > Yes, you are right, any() is not required. Here is the patch.
> > >
> > > Please also attach ChangeLog.
> > >
> > > The patch is OK for x86 target, it needs global reviewer approval
> > > (Maybe Jakub, as the patch touches OMP part).
> >
> > I don't like the new class name nor header name, bit_mask is way too generic
> > name for something very specialized (double hwi bitmask).
> >
> > Richard, any suggestions for this?
Maybe wide_int_bitmask? You could then even use fixed_wide_int <> as
"implementation".
Richard.