On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 16:25:50 GMT, Sandhya Viswanathan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I briefly looked at the patch. >>> >>> First of all, I suggest to separate the logic to handle intrinsification >>> failures. It's not specific to the proposed enhancement and will improve >>> handling of intrinsification failures for vector operations. >>> >>> Speaking of proposed approach, it aligns well with current Vector API >>> implementation practices. I agree it would be nice to automatically detect >>> equivalent IR shapes and transform them accordingly, but if it means >>> hard-coding the shape of `sliceTemplate` into the compiler, current >>> proposal does look well-justified. >> >> Thanks @iwanowww , I agree that approach to inline on intrinsic failure is >> generic enough and can benefit other vector operations also as it may absorb >> boxing penalties. For slice and un-slice since the fallback is completely >> written in vector APIs it will give most benefits and that is the focus of >> this patch. >> >> Looking forward to your other comments on current implementation. > > @jatin-bhateja I agree with @iwanowww that the PR could be split into two: > One handling the intrinsification failure/fallback handling and other with > vector slice optimization for x86. That might help you to get reviews on this > work. I volunteer to review the x86 PR. Order wise, the fallback PR would > need to get in first though. Hi @sviswa7 , your comments have been addressed, kindly verify ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24104#issuecomment-4197711394
