Closed maranget closed 1 month ago
Hi @maranget !
Would it make sense to have separator for -variant sve<n>
between sve
and <n>
? My worry is that if we occasionally get (sub)variant of sve which is likely follow sve<n>
scheme (Arm already has sve2), we cannot encode it the same - it will likely lead to confusion between (sve) extension number and (sve) vector length. What do you reckon?
Hi @murzinv , yes it does make sense. Do you mean something like -sve:512
?
Hi @murzinv , yes it does make sense. Do you mean something like
-sve:512
?
Yup, any separator :
or -
or ,
or any other to your taste :wink:
Let us go for ':'.
Hi @murzinv, I'd like to merge this PR, do you think it is ready?
Hi @murzinv, I'd like to merge this PR, do you think it is ready?
To the best of my knowledge, LGTM :+1:
Thanks, merge on its way.
Merged, tanks @murzinv.
Adopt a composite scalar type for the AArch64 neon and sve variants.
Scalars can either be 64 bit wide (for ordinary operations) or 128 bit wide (for neon vector operations). Default SVE vector length is also 128 bits. However, SVE vector length is configurable with
-variant sve<n>
, where<n>
is vector length in bits.