timshen added a comment. A note on test cases: I only used simds ints to test split() and concat(), as both functions don't specialize on the element type, unlike the constructors.
================ Comment at: libcxx/include/experimental/simd:1491 - template <class _Generator, size_t... __indicies> + template <class _Generator, size_t... __indices> static constexpr decltype( ---------------- mclow.lists wrote: > I see no change here other than fixing a typo - correct? That is correct. ================ Comment at: libcxx/include/experimental/simd:1630 + +#if !defined(_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_VECTOR_EXTENSION) && defined(_LIBCPP_COMPILER_CLANG) + template <size_t... __indices, class _Up, int __num_element> ---------------- mclow.lists wrote: > In general, we try to keep all the compiler-specific bits in `<__config>`. > They tend to grow/mutate over time, and so it's nice to have them all in one > place. > > Better to define something like `_LIBCPP_HAS_BUILTIN_SHUFFLEVECTOR` and use > that; then if GCC gets religion and adds it, you will only have to update a > single place. Also, it makes the reading easier - no more looking at this > and wondering "Why are you requiring clang here?" > > Is this the only place you plan on using `__simd_shuffle`? If so, why not a > member function. GCC already got religion and had it, but in a radically different interface. There is little chance that they will merge the interface in the future. The GCC one is called __builtin_shuffle (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Vector-Extensions.html). I haven't added it only because I don't care about the performance on GCC. It's rather non-trivial to eliminate the difference between them, certainly more than a macro like _LIBCPP_HAS_BUILTIN_SHUFFLEVECTOR. Do you have any other way to improve the readability? https://reviews.llvm.org/D41412 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
