[2025-02 LWG Motion 13] P2933R4 Extend <bit> header function with overloads for std::simd #7689
Conversation
mattkretz
force-pushed
the
motions-2025-02-lwg-13
branch
from
407e8b9 to
7eb0823
Compare
|
Commit descriptions should not have "[2025-02 LWG Motion 13] " in front. See https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/wiki/Commit-message-format#commits-from-committee-papers Feel free to fix + force-push the other ones, too. (No other changes in that push, please.) Add-on repairs for the contents should be "fixup: ..." commits, not force-pushes. |
mattkretz
force-pushed
the
motions-2025-02-lwg-13
branch
from
7eb0823 to
38d1808
Compare
| sph_neumann(const rebind_simd_t<unsigned, @\exposid{deduced-simd-t}@<V>>& n, const V& x); | ||
|
|
||
| // \ref{simd.bit}, Bit manipulation | ||
| template<@\exposconcept{simd-type}@ V> constexpr V byteswap(const V& v) noexcept; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Out of curiosity: Why this "simd-type" formulation instead of taking a suitably-parameterized std::basic_simd parameter type?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I asked that question in LWG but I don't recall an answer. What difference does it make (other than style)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
None, as far as I know; that's why I'm asking. It just feels a bit backwards to say "this function takes arguments of any type, except satisfaction checking of constraints will then check whether we have a specialization of X" instead of "this function takes a specialization of X".
(Maybe compiling is faster one way or the other.)
tkoeppe
force-pushed
the
motions-2025-02-lwg-13
branch
from
09229fb to
7baae55
Compare
tkoeppe
force-pushed
the
motions-2025-02-lwg-13
branch
from
7baae55 to
868ad5d
Compare
3 participants
Fixes #7672
Also fixes cplusplus/papers#1622