simd std::remove #6322
simd std::remove #6322
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Hari Hara Naveen S <johan511@rostam1.rostam.cct.lsu.edu>
Signed-off-by: Hari Hara Naveen S <johan511@rostam1.rostam.cct.lsu.edu>
Signed-off-by: Hari Hara Naveen S <harihara.sn@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Hari Hara Naveen S <harihara.sn@gmail.com>
…for function call deduction) Signed-off-by: Hari Hara Naveen S <harihara.sn@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Hari Hara Naveen S <harihara.sn@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Hari Hara Naveen S <harihara.sn@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Hari Hara Naveen S <harihara.sn@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Hari Hara Naveen S <harihara.sn@gmail.com>
Johan511
requested review from
aurianer,
biddisco,
hkaiser and
msimberg
as code owners
|
Seq vs unseq |
| @@ -34,8 +34,7 @@ namespace hpx::parallel::detail { | |||
| sequential_find_t<ExPolicy>, Iterator first, Sentinel last, | |||
| T const& value, Proj proj = Proj()) | |||
| { | |||
| return util::loop_pred< | |||
| std::decay_t<hpx::execution::sequenced_policy>>( | |||
| return util::loop_pred<ExPolicy>( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you need to decay the ExPolicy here (and in other places)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we really need decay over here? ExPolicy is only being used for deducing if seq or unseq overload should be called. is_unseq<unseq_policy> should be true for both value and reference right?
Also, please note that this is branched from simd-find.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, you tell me. I was just asking the question without closer investigation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To the best of my knowledge, I don't believe we need to decay. I am unsure why it was being decayed previously. I assume is_unseq<unseq_policy>, is_unseq<unseq_policy&> and is_unseq<unseq_policy&&> all evaluate to true
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@hkaiser I have tried checking behaviour with/without std::decay_t. The correct overloads are called in both cases. I am unsure why std::decay_t is being used.
Signed-off-by: Hari Hara Naveen S <harihara.sn@gmail.com>
Johan511
force-pushed
the
remove-simd
branch
from
f285c81
to
af0ef00
Compare
added remove unseq by changing find call to unseq