Rename x86_64 SIMD module, split Self / Mask types #34
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Make the naming of the ARM and Intel-specific modules consistent by using the Rust architecture name.
For WebAssembly and AVX2, the `Self` type can also be used as the SIMD mask type. However for i32/f32 and ARM the code had to convert to/from the actual mask type (bool and uint32_t respectively) to the `Self` type. Remove this unnecessary conversion and make the APIs clearer by introducing a separate `Mask` associated type for SIMD vectors.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This contains some cleanup of the portable SIMD modules after adding ARM implementations yesterday:
simd_vec::{avx => x86_64}to match the other architecture-specific modulesSelfandMasktypes in SIMD operations. For AVX 2 / WASM these are the same, but not for ARM or primitives, so the code had unnecessary conversions. Plus the function signatures are clearer if using a separate type.