jlb6740 opened PR #3105 from implement-sat-int-q-round-mul
to main
:
<!--
Please ensure that the following steps are all taken care of before submitting
the PR.
[ ] This has been discussed in issue #..., or if not, please tell us why
here.[ ] A short description of what this does, why it is needed; if the
description becomes long, the matter should probably be discussed in an issue
first.[ ] This PR contains test cases, if meaningful.
- [ ] A reviewer from the core maintainer team has been assigned for this PR.
If you don't know who could review this, please indicate so. The list of
suggested reviewers on the right can help you.Please ensure all communication adheres to the code of conduct.
-->
jlb6740 updated PR #3105 from implement-sat-int-q-round-mul
to main
.
jlb6740 updated PR #3105 from implement-sat-int-q-round-mul
to main
.
jlb6740 requested abrown for a review on PR #3105.
jlb6740 requested cfallin for a review on PR #3105.
cfallin submitted PR review.
cfallin submitted PR review.
cfallin created PR review comment:
s/optimial/optimal/
cfallin created PR review comment:
Why was
movdqa
removed here?
cfallin created PR review comment:
Could you remove the added space here?
jlb6740 submitted PR review.
jlb6740 created PR review comment:
@cfallin I am actually a little confused here because I thought I introduced this during the same patch only to remove it during an amend. In any case I removed it because I questioned the correct encoding. I avoided using the instruction directly and just used the gen_move call.
About my concern on the encoding, specifically the encodings are:
66 0F 6F /r | MOVDQA xmm1, xmm2/m128
or
66 0F 7F /r | MOVDQA xmm2/m128, xmm1
I think the former should be used, not the later. I also noticed that Movdqu also uses the later. This frankly was a todo to understand but in the moment I just used the gen_move as I noted above.
jlb6740 updated PR #3105 from implement-sat-int-q-round-mul
to main
.
jlb6740 submitted PR review.
jlb6740 created PR review comment:
Given the approval I'll push this assuming your fine with it still being removed.
cfallin submitted PR review.
cfallin created PR review comment:
OK, makes sense -- in any case it's clear it's not used since the thing still compiles and works in CI!
jlb6740 merged PR #3105.
Last updated: Dec 23 2024 at 12:05 UTC