On 8/7/19 8:59 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 8/7/19 1:31 AM, tony.ngu...@bt.com wrote:
>> + _mm_ops[end == DEVICE_LITTLE_ENDIAN ? 0 :
>> 1],
>
> This is of course "end != DEVICE_LITTLE_ENDIAN".
And by that I mean drop the ?: operator.
r~
On 8/7/19 1:31 AM, tony.ngu...@bt.com wrote:
> + _mm_ops[end == DEVICE_LITTLE_ENDIAN ? 0 :
> 1],
This is of course "end != DEVICE_LITTLE_ENDIAN".
r~
On 8/7/19 1:31 AM, tony.ngu...@bt.com wrote:
> Preparation to replace device_endian with MemOp.
>
> Mapping device_endian onto MemOp limits behaviour changes to this
> relatively smaller patch.
>
> The next patch will replace all device_endian usages with the
> equivalent MemOp. That patch will
Preparation to replace device_endian with MemOp.
Mapping device_endian onto MemOp limits behaviour changes to this
relatively smaller patch.
The next patch will replace all device_endian usages with the
equivalent MemOp. That patch will be large but have no behaviour
changes.
A subsequent patch
