fhahn marked 3 inline comments as done. fhahn added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/MatrixTypes.rst:12 +fixed-size matrices as language values and perform arithmetic on them. + +This feature is currently experimental, and both its design and its ---------------- SjoerdMeijer wrote: > Would it be good to set expectations here or in the section below: define > that we're talking about 2-dimensional m × n matrices? I've changed it to `fixed-size 2-dimensional matrices`. I think the type definition below should be already clear enough about being 2 dimensional. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/MatrixTypes.rst:27 +internal layout, overall size and alignment are implementation-defined. +A *matrix element type* must be a real type (as in C99 6.2.5p17) excluding +enumeration types or an implementation-defined half-precision floating point ---------------- SjoerdMeijer wrote: > above you're using *element type* and here *matrix element type*. Since > hopefully we're talking about the same things, "matrix *element type*" would > be more consistent. > > But this is just a nit, my main question is about the types: > why not e.g. define this to be the C11 types, that include _FloatN types, so > that we can include N=16? Or is this intentionally omitted? I haven't even > checked if this is supported in the architecture extension, but might make > sense? And also, an element type cannot be an integer type? > > > above you're using *element type* and here *matrix element type*. Since > hopefully we're talking about the same things, "matrix *element type*" would > be more consistent. Yes it is referring to the same thing. I had a look at most uses, and in most cases `element type` is used to refer to the element type of a given matrix type. In that context it seems a bit verbose to use `matrix element type`, although I am more than happy to change that if it helps with clarifying things. I intentionally used `matrix element type` in `Arithmetic Conversions`, because there it is standing on its own and refers exactly to the set of types defined as valid matrix element types here. > why not e.g. define this to be the C11 types, that include _FloatN types, so > that we can include N=16? Or is this intentionally omitted? I haven't even > checked if this is supported in the architecture extension, but might make > sense? I couldn't find any reference to _FloatN types in the C11 draft version I checked. Do you by any chance have a reference to the _FloatN types? > And also, an element type cannot be an integer type? The current definition should include it (real types include integer and real floating point types according to C99 6.2.5p17). I don't think there is any reason to exclude them I think. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D76612/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D76612 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
