On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:38 AM, rajagopal, dwarak
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Michael on the naming and having separate files for AVX and
> including all the header files inside x86intrin.h.
>
> Also it would be easy for the users if we include all the instruction
> sets supported by
Joey; Guo, Xuepeng; Girkar, Milind
> Subject: Re: RFC: A new meta intrinsic header file for x86 intrinsics
>
> Hi HJ,
>
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> > Icc will introduce to support intrinsics for current
and
> > future instruction sets, starting with
Hi HJ,
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Icc will introduce to support intrinsics for current and
> future instruction sets, starting with AVX.
So how about the (IMO) nicer name this list came up the last time this was
brought up (April): x86intrin.h .
> My question is if we should put AV
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 02:17:40PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> My question is if we should put AVX intrinsics directly in immintrin.h or in
> a separate file. If we put AVX and future intrinsics directly in immintrin.h,
> immintrin.h may become very large and harder to maintain. Another
> choice is to
H.J. Lu wrote:
Icc and gcc will use the same filename. The question is what filename
to use.
Oh, OK. If we get to pick, then, yes, I think is nice.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(650) 331-3385 x713
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:10:55PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> We will implement meta intrinsic header file for AVX intrinsics.
>> However, I am not sure if is the best name for it.
>> Does anyone have any suggestions, how about ?
>
> I think there's value in using the same n
H.J. Lu wrote:
We will implement meta intrinsic header file for AVX intrinsics.
However, I am not sure if is the best name for it.
Does anyone have any suggestions, how about ?
I think there's value in using the same name as icc. It's set a
precedent, let's keep it. That makes it easy for
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:35:00AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>> I prefer , as these are presumably usable in x86-64 mode.
>>>
>>> One random request: would it be possible to keep mm_malloc.h out of the
>>> umbrella header? Inclusion of mm_malloc.h make use of SSE difficult in
>>> kernel context
I prefer , as these are presumably usable in x86-64
mode.
One random request: would it be possible to keep mm_malloc.h out of
the
umbrella header? Inclusion of mm_malloc.h make use of SSE
difficult in
kernel contexts, as mm_malloc.h pulls in stdlib.h and errno.h.
The idea is one header
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 4, 2008, at 10:13 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > For each new set of x86 intrinsics, we introduce a new header file. It
> > will be desirable for users just to include one header file for all
> > intrins
On Apr 4, 2008, at 10:13 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Hi,
For each new set of x86 intrinsics, we introduce a new header file. It
will be desirable for users just to include one header file for all
intrinsics, current and future. Icc has , which includes
proper individual intrinsic header files and users
11 matches
Mail list logo
