SIMD #2294
SIMD #2294
Conversation
spotandjake
left a comment
spotandjake
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks awesome overall, I've just done an initial review so far, but want to go back over against the wasm api.
| "build": [ | ||
| "dune build @native --no-buffer" | ||
| ], | ||
| "build": ["dune build @native --no-buffer"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why did the formatting change here?
| from "runtime/unsafe/wasmv128" include WasmV128 | ||
| use WasmV128.* | ||
|
|
||
| let (==) = (x, y) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not provide this in the runtime module?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
compiler/test/runtime might be a better place for this. I know the other unsafe tests exist here but we should honestly move those too. Especially as we would like to eventually split the runtime and stdlib.
| | WasmSimdConstI8x16 => | ||
| prim_type( | ||
| [ | ||
| ("lane0", Builtin_types.type_wasmi32), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if it would have been worth using a helper like List.init((index) => ("lane" ++ toString(index),Builtin_types.type_wasmi32), 15) for all of these.
| }; | ||
| let features = | ||
| if (Config.simd^) { | ||
| [Module.Feature.simd128, ...features]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Binaryen's default behaviour is to error if a feature isn't enabled but the code is used right?
| // TODO(#): Use a more descriptive name once we get fixes into Binaryen | ||
| let grain_memory = "0"; | ||
|
|
||
| let gensym_counter = ref(0); |
| ), | ||
| ); | ||
| | None => | ||
| // The wrapper function generated for this can never provide immediate |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The problem here is we have no way to say something needs to be a proper constant for align and such right??
Similar to the issue we run into with load and store?
No description provided.