From: Nathan F. <fr...@gm...> - 2009-06-25 22:10:02
|
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Paul Khuong<pk...@us...> wrote: > 1.0.29.44: Complex float improvements This is great work. Could you also: - Add a NEWS blurb if Nikodemus doesn't beat you to it first as RM this month? - In light of recent work to use descriptive feature names instead of #!+(or cpu1 cpu2) conditionals, could you use something more descriptive for the #![+-]x86-64 conditionals scattered about? I see that you have the COMPLEX-FLOAT-VOPS feature, which is good, but IIUC, the x86-64 conditionalization is for something different? -Nathan |
From: Paul K. <pk...@gm...> - 2009-06-27 14:24:20
|
On 25-Jun-09, at 6:09 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Paul > Khuong<pk...@us...> wrote: >> 1.0.29.44: Complex float improvements [...] > - In light of recent work to use descriptive feature names instead of > #!+(or cpu1 cpu2) conditionals, could you use something more > descriptive for the #![+-]x86-64 conditionals scattered about? I see > that you have the COMPLEX-FLOAT-VOPS feature, which is good, but IIUC, > the x86-64 conditionalization is for something different? COMPLEX-FLOAT-VOPS was used to conditionalise things that were reasonably implementation-independent. The implementation of VOP-ful complexes itself was conditionalised on x86-64, even in generic files. There's only one implementation so far, and I find it hard to tell ahead of time what's accidental and what'll be shared across all implementations. The transforms for EQL into single-float-bits and double-float- {low,high}-bits were also made conditional on #!-x86-64. FLOAT-EQL- VOPS would be a good feature to insert when I fix a typo in two-arg-+/-. Paul Khuong |