vec_sll example
#24
Closed
opened 5 years ago by wschmidt-ibm
·
6 comments
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
There is no content yet.
Delete Branch '%!s(<nil>)'
Deleting a branch is permanent. It CANNOT be undone. Continue?
PC suggests an example of the vec_sll endian issue. Not a show-stopper if this isn't done.
Would this be better in section 2.5 Vector Built-In Functions or section 4.2 Built-In Vector Functions?
I think 4.2, please.
After thinking on this a bit, given the general compactness and fairly consistent presentation in 4.2, I think it would be awkward and perhaps more confusing than helpful to add a bad example within the definition for
vec_sll
.I would be more inclined toward adding a bad example in section 2.5 as an example of what happens if endianness is not accommodated for endian-sensitive intrinsics.
Or, perhaps this issue should just be closed, since all of the impacted intrinsics clearly say "This intrinsic is not endian-neutral, so uses of
vec_sll
in big-endian code must be rewritten for little-endian targets."Another option, after reading that quote again, is to put an example, perhaps in section 2.5, of how "code must be rewritten for little-endian targets", since this document provides no specific guidance. (In the entire document, the only uses of "swap" are in
vec_xl
andvec_xst
.)I think if you want to go that route, the more appropriate place is section 2.7, which is specifically for this purpose.
I honestly don't care whether or not we explain this, given that vec_sll is not a terribly useful interface. vec_sl, vec_sld, and vec_slo are more sensible.
In fact, I would really lean towards closing this issue. :-D