New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[ESIMD] Add esimd::merge free function. #5308
Conversation
Also, remove deprecation note from the 'simd_mask_impl(const simd<T, N> &Val)' constructor, as it is used when loading a mask from memory, and is otherwise useful constructor. Signed-off-by: Konstantin S Bobrovsky <konstantin.s.bobrovsky@intel.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me.
__ESIMD_API auto merge(simd_view<BaseT1, RegionT1> v1, | ||
simd_view<BaseT2, RegionT2> v2, | ||
simd_mask<shape_type<RegionT1>::length> m) { | ||
return merge(v1.read(), v2.read(), m); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is the usage of the mask here consistent with the other two overloads?
The first two use a.merge(b, m)
, and the documentation says "The semantic is that if the LSB of an element of Mask is set, then the corresponding data element of Val is copied to the corresponding position in the calling simd object." -- b
is copied if m
is true.
This one uses merge(a, b, m)
, and the documentation says "The semantic is that if the LSB of an element of Mask is set, then the corresponding data element of Val1 is copied to the corresponding position in the calling simd object".
Am I reading the documentation wrong, or should this be merge(b, a, m)
to match the semantics?
(A simpler way to ask the same question might be: is the behavior of this two-input version of merge
the same as the two-input member function?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the catch of this discrepancy in the documentation, John. The actual behavior is that any non-zero in a mask element (e.g. 0x8) is considered as "enabled", so this version is correct, and the one is not. I'm working on updating the documentation, so I will address this.
The behavior is consistent across all versions/overloads of merge, as those ones are implemented through the other.
@intel/dpcpp-esimd-reviewers , ping |
Also, remove deprecation note from the 'simd_mask_impl(const simd<T, N> &Val)'
constructor, as it is used when loading a mask from memory, and is otherwise
useful constructor.
E2E test: intel/llvm-test-suite#739
Signed-off-by: Konstantin S Bobrovsky konstantin.s.bobrovsky@intel.com