ARM64-SVE: Add TrigonometricSelectCoefficient, TrigonometricStartingValue
#104681
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -5218,6 +5218,36 @@ public static float MultiplyExtended(float op1, float op2) | |
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public static float TrigonometricSelectCoefficient(float op1, uint op2) | ||
| { | ||
| float result = ((op2 % 2) == 0) ? op1 : (float)1.0; | ||
| bool isNegative = (op2 & 0b10) == 0b10; | ||
|
|
||
| if (isNegative != (result < 0)) | ||
| { | ||
| result *= -1; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return result; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public static float TrigonometricStartingValue(float op1, uint op2) | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. are we sure we are taking into account all the possibilities of the operation? https://docsmirror.github.io/A64/2023-06/shared_pseudocode.html#impl-shared.FPMul.3? @SwapnilGaikwad, can we double check this one? There was a problem hiding this comment. The logic in the helper function is correct for the valid input (-π/4 < x <= π/4). However, behaviour of the instruction may be undefined if the input falls outside the valid range. There was a problem hiding this comment. @amanasifkhalid - for our testing purpose, we would certainly fall out of valid range. how does the API behave for them? wondering if test is robust enough to not fail for invalid values or we at least handle them? There was a problem hiding this comment. I've verified we are generating out-of-range values, though the tests are still passing. I can constrain the inputs to this test to ensure we don't go out of range to avoid potential undefined behavior. There was a problem hiding this comment.
that's interesting. so undefined could be that sometime they will pass and sometime they won't.
Or probably constaint the validation for only the lanes that had valid inputs? that way we will still have coverage for invalid values, which realistically someone can pass in? There was a problem hiding this comment.
That sounds like a better idea. I'll update the validation logic to do this. |
||
| { | ||
| float result = op1 * op1; | ||
|
|
||
| if (float.IsNaN(result)) | ||
| { | ||
| return result; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if ((op2 % 2) == 1) | ||
| { | ||
| result *= -1; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return result; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public static float FPExponentialAccelerator(uint op1) | ||
| { | ||
| uint index = op1 & 0b111111; | ||
|
|
@@ -5338,6 +5368,36 @@ public static double MultiplyExtended(double op1, double op2) | |
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public static double TrigonometricSelectCoefficient(double op1, ulong op2) | ||
| { | ||
| double result = ((op2 % 2) == 0) ? op1 : 1.0; | ||
| bool isNegative = (op2 & 0b10) == 0b10; | ||
|
|
||
| if (isNegative != (result < 0)) | ||
| { | ||
| result *= -1; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return result; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public static double TrigonometricStartingValue(double op1, ulong op2) | ||
| { | ||
| double result = op1 * op1; | ||
|
|
||
| if (double.IsNaN(result)) | ||
| { | ||
| return result; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if ((op2 % 2) == 1) | ||
| { | ||
| result *= -1; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return result; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public static double FPExponentialAccelerator(ulong op1) | ||
| { | ||
| ulong index = op1 & 0b111111; | ||
|
|
||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.