whatever the notation, it needs to be one that a) gives good support for enforcing the "the shuffle is dictated at compile time" b) is really simple, and easy to adjust for different size SIMD vectors. 2x, 4x,8x,16x are all ones that currently and/or will soon exist on the CPU front at the very least!
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Liigo Zhuang <[email protected]> wrote: > let tuple = (1.0f32, 2.0f32, 3.0f32, 4.0f32); > let a,b,c = tuple.1, tuple.2, tuple.3; // I prefer this. (0-based?) > // or: tuple.a, tuple.b, tuple.c, ...z > // or: tuple[index] > > > 2014/1/15 Richard Diamond <[email protected]> > >> Basically the idea here is to support shuffling for SIMD types in a way >> that can be easily lowered to IR (LLVM's shufflevector requires the mask be >> a vector of constants, so an intrinsic function is out of the question), >> however I image this sugar could extend to tuples with multiple types. >> >> Some examples: >> >> let vec = (1.0f32, 2.0f32, 3.0f32, 4.0f32); >> let all_x = vec -> (0, 0, 0, 0); // perhaps this should be "vec <- (0, 0, >> 0, 0)"? >> assert_eq!(all_x, (1.0f32, 1.0f32, 1.0f32, 1.0f32)); >> let single_x = vec -> (0); >> assert_eq!(single_x, (1.0f32)); >> >> let mut vec = vec; >> vec <- (0) = 5.0f32; // set x only >> vec <- (1, 2) = (6.0f32, 7.0f32) // set y & z >> assert_eq!(vec, (5.0f32, 6.0f32, 7.0f32, 4.0f32)); >> >> let vec = vec; >> // the mask may be arbitrarily long: >> assert_eq!(vec -> (0, 1, 2, 3, 0), (5.0f32, 6.0f32, 7.0f32, 4.0f32, >> 5.0f32)); >> >> // leaves vec unchanged >> let functional_update = vec -> (0, 1, 3) .. (0.5f32, 1.0f32, 10.0f32); >> // functional_update would take it's type from vec >> assert_eq!(vec, (5.0f32, 6.0f32, 7.0f32, 4.0f32)); >> assert_eq!(functional_update, (0.5f32, 1.0f32, 7.0f32, 10.0f32)); >> >> A couple of things would need to be disallowed, however: >> >> let mut vec = vec; >> // no duplicate assignments/functional updates: >> vec <- (0, 0) = (..); >> let _ = vec -> (0, 1, 2, 3, 0) .. (..); >> // no out-of-bounds: >> vec <- (5, 9000) = (..); >> let _ = vec -> (5, 9001); >> let _ = vec -> (5, 9002) .. (..); >> let _ = vec -> (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) .. (..); >> // all mask values must be a const expr: >> let mut non_const_expr = 15; >> vec <- (non_const_expr) = (..); >> let _ = vec -> (non_const_expr) .. (..); >> let _ = vec -> (non_const_expr); >> // mismatched tuple sizes: >> vec <- (0, 1) = (0.0f32, 0.0f32, 0.0f32); >> let _ = vec -> (0) .. (0.0f32, 0.0f32); >> >> AIUI, the notation would be: >> tuple_mask : '(' integer [ ',' integer ] * ')' ; >> tuple_expr : '(' expr [ ',' expr ] * ')' | >> tuple_expr "->" tuple_mask [ ".." tuple_expr ] ? ; >> >> I'm willing to write this myself, but I'd like some consensus/feedback >> regarding ze proposed sugar. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rust-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >> >> > > > -- > by *Liigo*, http://blog.csdn.net/liigo/ > Google+ https://plus.google.com/105597640837742873343/ > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
