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
Per the dxil-vectors spec (pending), add support for native LLVM vectors in DXIL 1.9.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Native vectors are needed for long vectors which are useful for ML applications.
Describe the solution you'd like
DXIL inherits native vector support from LLVM IR, however, they were always disallowed by validation etc.
These will be allowed on any LLVM operators and elementwise DXIL intrinsics listed in the spec. In the initial implementation, some of these intrinsics may still be scalarized, but they will ultimately all take native vectors.
Describe alternatives you've considered
A bespoke opaque vector type was considered for the broader solution, but using what existing LLVM vector support would allow fewer changes, less risk with tools based on LLVM, and consistency with future developments in modern LLVM.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Per the dxil-vectors spec (pending), add support for native LLVM vectors in DXIL 1.9.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Native vectors are needed for long vectors which are useful for ML applications.
Describe the solution you'd like
DXIL inherits native vector support from LLVM IR, however, they were always disallowed by validation etc.
These will be allowed on any LLVM operators and elementwise DXIL intrinsics listed in the spec. In the initial implementation, some of these intrinsics may still be scalarized, but they will ultimately all take native vectors.
Execution tests are covered by #7068
Describe alternatives you've considered
A bespoke opaque vector type was considered for the broader solution, but using what existing LLVM vector support would allow fewer changes, less risk with tools based on LLVM, and consistency with future developments in modern LLVM.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: