[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <A0F8EB85-2F53-4EF7-93F7-23EFDB3A8D55@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:37:14 +0800
From: Lei Zhang <zhanglei.april@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: extend SIMD intrinsics
> On Jul 7, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 08:08:21PM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> + typedef union {
>> + vtype v;
>> + uint32_t s[SIMD_COEF_32];
>> + } vtype32;
>>
>> + typedef union {
>> + vtype v;
>> + uint64_t s[SIMD_COEF_64];
>> + } vtype64;
>
> Why two separate union types, though? We could use a shared type, with
> two arrays in place of s. Would have to call those e.g. s32 and s64.
Using a union type, the pseudo-intrinsics would be written this way (for AltiVec):
#vadd_epi32(x, y) (vtype)vec_add(x.v32, y.v32)
#vadd_epi64(x, y) (vtype)vec_add(x.v64, y.v64)
Does the type casting here violate strict aliasing?
Or further, for a union type defined as
typedef union {
vtype32 v32;
uint32_t s32[...];
} vtype;
vtype v;
Would there be any difference between using v.v32 and using (vtype32)v ?
Lei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
