On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 03:39:43 GMT, Xiaohong Gong wrote:
>> Currently "VectorMask.andNot()" is not vectorized:
>> public VectorMask andNot(VectorMask m) {
>> // FIXME: Generate good code here.
>> return bOp(m, (i, a, b) -> a && !b);
>> }
>> This can be implemented with` "and(
On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 09:59:31 GMT, Ningsheng Jian wrote:
>> Xiaohong Gong has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Move the changing to AbstractMask.andNot and revert changes in VectorMask
>>
>> Change-Id: Ie3ec8f53cb24526c8e1c
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 15:13:31 GMT, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> Xiaohong Gong has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Move the changing to AbstractMask.andNot and revert changes in VectorMask
>>
>> Change-Id: Ie3ec8f53cb24526c8e1ccc6
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 03:39:43 GMT, Xiaohong Gong wrote:
>> Currently "VectorMask.andNot()" is not vectorized:
>> public VectorMask andNot(VectorMask m) {
>> // FIXME: Generate good code here.
>> return bOp(m, (i, a, b) -> a && !b);
>> }
>> This can be implemented with` "and(
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:42:09 GMT, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Would you mind updating the existing `AbstractMask.andNot` implementation?
> rather than changing `VectorMask.andNot`. That fits in with the current
> implementation pattern.
Hi @PaulSandoz , thanks for looking at this PR. I'v updated the
> Currently "VectorMask.andNot()" is not vectorized:
> public VectorMask andNot(VectorMask m) {
> // FIXME: Generate good code here.
> return bOp(m, (i, a, b) -> a && !b);
> }
> This can be implemented with` "and(m.not())" `directly. Since
> `"VectorMask.and()/not()" `have
