sse

问题 In AT&T syntax instructions often have to be suffixed with the appropriate operand size, with q for operations on 64-bit operands. However in MMX and SSE there is also movq instruction, with the q being in the original Intel mnemonic and not an additional suffix. So how will this be represented in AT&T? Is another q suffix needed like movqq %mm1, %mm0 movqq %xmm1, %xmm0 or not? And if there are any other instructions that end like AT&T suffixes (like paddd , slld ), do they work the same way?

问题 PCMPGTQ was introduced in sse4.2, and it provides a greater than signed comparison for 64 bit numbers that yields a mask. How does one support this functionality on instructions sets predating sse4.2? Update: This same question applies to ARMv7 with Neon which also lacks a 64-bit comparator. The sister question to this is found here: What is the most efficient way to support CMGT with 64bit signed comparisons on ARMv7a with Neon? 回答1: __m128i pcmpgtq_sse2 (__m128i a, __m128i b) { __m128i r =

问题 PCMPGTQ was introduced in sse4.2, and it provides a greater than signed comparison for 64 bit numbers that yields a mask. How does one support this functionality on instructions sets predating sse4.2? Update: This same question applies to ARMv7 with Neon which also lacks a 64-bit comparator. The sister question to this is found here: What is the most efficient way to support CMGT with 64bit signed comparisons on ARMv7a with Neon? 回答1: __m128i pcmpgtq_sse2 (__m128i a, __m128i b) { __m128i r =

问题 PCMPGTQ was introduced in sse4.2, and it provides a greater than signed comparison for 64 bit numbers that yields a mask. How does one support this functionality on instructions sets predating sse4.2? Update: This same question applies to ARMv7 with Neon which also lacks a 64-bit comparator. The sister question to this is found here: What is the most efficient way to support CMGT with 64bit signed comparisons on ARMv7a with Neon? 回答1: __m128i pcmpgtq_sse2 (__m128i a, __m128i b) { __m128i r =

问题 PCMPGTQ was introduced in sse4.2, and it provides a greater than signed comparison for 64 bit numbers that yields a mask. How does one support this functionality on instructions sets predating sse4.2? Update: This same question applies to ARMv7 with Neon which also lacks a 64-bit comparator. The sister question to this is found here: What is the most efficient way to support CMGT with 64bit signed comparisons on ARMv7a with Neon? 回答1: __m128i pcmpgtq_sse2 (__m128i a, __m128i b) { __m128i r =

问题 I have the following __m128 vectors: v_weight v_entropy I need to add v_entropy to v_weight only where elements in v_weight are not 0f. Obviously _mm_add_ps() adds all elements regardless. I can compile up to AVX, but not AVX2. EDIT I do know beforehand how many elements in v_weight will be 0 (there will always be either 0 or the last 1, 2, or 3 elements). If it's easier, how do I zero-out the corresponding elements in v_entropy ? 回答1: The cmpeq/cmpgt instructions create a mask, all ones or

问题 After looking at a table of registers in the x86/x64 architecture, I noticed that there's a whole section of 128, 256, and 512-bit registers that I've never seen them being used in assembly, or decompiled C/C++ code: XMM(0-15) for 128, YMM(0-15) for 256, ZMM(0-31) 512. After doing a bit of digging what I've gathered is that you have to use 2 64 bit operations in order to perform math on a 128 bit number, instead of using generic add , sub , mul , div operations. If this is the case, then what

问题 After looking at a table of registers in the x86/x64 architecture, I noticed that there's a whole section of 128, 256, and 512-bit registers that I've never seen them being used in assembly, or decompiled C/C++ code: XMM(0-15) for 128, YMM(0-15) for 256, ZMM(0-31) 512. After doing a bit of digging what I've gathered is that you have to use 2 64 bit operations in order to perform math on a 128 bit number, instead of using generic add , sub , mul , div operations. If this is the case, then what

问题 After looking at a table of registers in the x86/x64 architecture, I noticed that there's a whole section of 128, 256, and 512-bit registers that I've never seen them being used in assembly, or decompiled C/C++ code: XMM(0-15) for 128, YMM(0-15) for 256, ZMM(0-31) 512. After doing a bit of digging what I've gathered is that you have to use 2 64 bit operations in order to perform math on a 128 bit number, instead of using generic add , sub , mul , div operations. If this is the case, then what

问题 After looking at a table of registers in the x86/x64 architecture, I noticed that there's a whole section of 128, 256, and 512-bit registers that I've never seen them being used in assembly, or decompiled C/C++ code: XMM(0-15) for 128, YMM(0-15) for 256, ZMM(0-31) 512. After doing a bit of digging what I've gathered is that you have to use 2 64 bit operations in order to perform math on a 128 bit number, instead of using generic add , sub , mul , div operations. If this is the case, then what