On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 09:27:02 GMT, Jatin Bhateja <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> > > Some quick comments.
>>> > > We should be consistent in the naming, and rename `Halfloat*` to 
>>> > > `Float16*`.
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > I concur, especially since there are multiple 16-bit floating-point 
>>> > formats in use including the IEEE 754 float16 as well as bfloat16.
>>> 
>>> There are nomenclature issues that I am facing. Currently, all the Float16 
>>> concrete classes use the Halffloat prefix i.e., Halffloat64Vector, 
>>> Halffloat128Vector; converting these to Float16 looks a little confusing, 
>>> i.e., Float1664Vector, Float16128Vector, etc Kindly suggest a better name 
>>> to represent these classes.
>> 
>> Maybe we move the shape to the end e.g., `Float16Vector128`, `IntVector128`, 
>> `IntVectorMax`?
>
>> > > > Some quick comments.
>> > > > We should be consistent in the naming, and rename `Halfloat*` to 
>> > > > `Float16*`.
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > I concur, especially since there are multiple 16-bit floating-point 
>> > > formats in use including the IEEE 754 float16 as well as bfloat16.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > There are nomenclature issues that I am facing. Currently, all the Float16 
>> > concrete classes use the Halffloat prefix i.e., Halffloat64Vector, 
>> > Halffloat128Vector; converting these to Float16 looks a little confusing, 
>> > i.e., Float1664Vector, Float16128Vector, etc Kindly suggest a better name 
>> > to represent these classes.
>> 
>> Maybe we move the shape to the end e.g., `Float16Vector128`, `IntVector128`, 
>> `IntVectorMax`?
> 
> This looks good, since all these are concrete vector classes not exposed to 
> users.

@jatin-bhateja it looks like you should be merging latest changes from master; 
Some changes shown in the diff obviously do not belong to this fix:
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/28002/files#diff-7798f606ce2bbf96fd99999c8c0ef9a4bb0455c128dd7e1249dea8db23d35402
Hopefully merging latest changes from master will make them go away?

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28002#issuecomment-3571013379

Reply via email to