You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Dec 22, 2021. It is now read-only.
Repository navigation
This repository was archived by the owner on Dec 22, 2021. It is now read-only.
#71 added a new shuffle instruction but was explicitly merged without consensus on the name of the new instruction or the instruction that PR renamed to v8x16.shuffle2_imm (previously v8x16.shuffle). Now that the instruction is merged into the proposal, we should return to the bikeshed of the names.
In the previous PR I held an informal vote for different parts of the naming schemes: #71 (comment)
At time of writing, these are the results:
3 votes for using permute* and shuffle* as the base names
1 vote for using shuffle1* and shuffle2* as the base names
0 votes for using _dyn as a suffix marking dynamic indices
1 vote for using _vec as a suffix marking dynamic indices
3 votes for not having a suffix to mark dynamic indices
If we went with the most popular results, our two instructions would be named v8x16.permute and v8x16.shuffle_imm. What does everyone think of that?
Bump! With our new stage 2 status and @Honry about to start writing spec tests, it would be good to get the naming squared away. Please give me at least a quick 👍 if you would be fine with v8x16.permute and v8x16.shuffle_imm and a 😕 if you prefer something else.
The whole point of the names, as opposed to the binary encoding, is clarity. I still find it misleading that v8x16.permute does not perform a permutation. Something like v8x16.shuffle1 and v8x16.shuffle2_imm feel more accurate to me.
We talked about this at the last meeting, and reached a general consensus in the room that swizzle would be a good name for the single-argument version and shuffle for the two-argument version. @gnzlbg does that sound acceptable to you?
Activity
tlively commentedon Jun 18, 2019
Bump! With our new stage 2 status and @Honry about to start writing spec tests, it would be good to get the naming squared away. Please give me at least a quick 👍 if you would be fine with
v8x16.permuteandv8x16.shuffle_immand a 😕 if you prefer something else.gnzlbg commentedon Jun 18, 2019
The whole point of the names, as opposed to the binary encoding, is clarity. I still find it misleading that
v8x16.permutedoes not perform a permutation. Something likev8x16.shuffle1andv8x16.shuffle2_immfeel more accurate to me.tlively commentedon Jul 3, 2019
We talked about this at the last meeting, and reached a general consensus in the room that
swizzlewould be a good name for the single-argument version andshufflefor the two-argument version. @gnzlbg does that sound acceptable to you?gnzlbg commentedon Jul 4, 2019
Sounds good,
swizzleoperations take one argument, allow repetition, and is a technical term in computer graphics.