Implement rotate_elements_{left,right} on masks - #360
Open
Shnatsel wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Shnatsel
force-pushed
the
mask-movement-methods
branch
from
August 30, 2026 09:56
bec1909 to
1d89c39
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pretty straightforward: forward either to the vector
rotate_elements_*for vector-backed masks, or torotate_*on std scalars for AVX-512.Since lowerings into
slide()caused issues with compile time before, I measured how this impacts the build, and it's within measurement noise. I've experimented with implementing it as a default trait without re-emitting basically the same body into individual implementation methods, but that created more IR for LLVM dead code elimination to chew through, and slowed down compilation of code that actually uses and instantiates this without meaningfully changing the frontend costs. So I believe this is the best way to implement this.