On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 23:29:33 GMT, Paul Sandoz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Okay, I got your point. I think this might be to maintain consistency with >> `UMINReduceMasked`; for the masked version, if no element is selected, it >> returns the identity value. I'm okay with both approaches, maybe let’s hear >> what @PaulSandoz thinks. > > For masking we need to start with the identity or otherwise use the identify > when no mask bits are set. It would be better to declare as constants and > refer to them e.g., `UMAX_VALUE`, `UMIN_VALUE`. There are also other cases > where we use identity values for reduction and they follow the same pattern > of declaration and use. Hi @PaulSandoz thanks for your input. > It would be better to declare as constants and refer to them e.g., > UMAX_VALUE, UMIN_VALUE. Do you mean adding two **public** constants to `Byte/Short/Integer/Long.java` ? Like `Byte.MIN_VALUE`. In this way, these two constants can be used in anywhere. Or just two **private** constants in `ByteVector.java`? Like `MAX_OR_INF`. I think you're referring to the former, right? To add a public constant, we need to go through the **CSR (Compatibility & Specification Review) process**, right? I haven't gone through that process before. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28692#discussion_r2600838156
