aaron/ispc
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Fix small typos in documentation.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Matt Pharr
2012-07-07 11:19:57 -07:00
parent 974b40c8af
commit 57f0cf30c0
1 changed files with 6 additions and 6 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

12
docs/ispc.rst
View File

@@ -584,15 +584,15 @@ distribution.
With the current beta implementation, complex ``ispc`` programs are able to
run on Xeon Phi, though there are a number of known limitations:
* The ``examples/intrinsics/knc.h`` header file isn’t complete yet; for
example, vector operations with ``int8`` and ``int16`` types aren’t yet
* The ``examples/intrinsics/knc.h`` header file isn't complete yet; for
example, vector operations with ``int8`` and ``int16`` types aren't yet
implemented. Programs that operate on ``varying`` ``int32``, ``float``,
and ``double`` data-types (and ``uniform`` variables of any data type,
and arrays and structures of these types), should operate correctly.
* If you use the ``launch`` functionality to launch tasks across cores,
note that the pthreads task system implemented in
``examples/tasksys.cpp`` hasn’t been tuned for Xeon Phi yet, and has
``examples/tasksys.cpp`` hasn't been tuned for Xeon Phi yet, and has
known issues with setting thread affinities optimally.
* The compiler currently emits unaligned memory accesses in many cases
@@ -2491,7 +2491,7 @@ could instead be written inside a ``foreach_active`` statement:
The variable name provided in parenthesis after the ``foreach_active``
keyword (here, ``index``), causes a ``const uniform int64`` local variable
of that name to be declared, where the variable takes the ``programIndex``
value of the program instance executing at each loop iteraton.
value of the program instance executing at each loop iteration.
In the code above, because only one program instance is executing at a time
when the loop body executes, the update to ``array`` is well-defined.
@@ -2504,7 +2504,7 @@ more complex cases.)
``break`` and ``return`` are prohibited. The order in which the active
program instances are processed in the loop is not defined.
See the `Using "foreach_active" Effectively`_ Section in the ispc
See the `Using "foreach_active" Effectively`_ Section in the ``ispc``
Performance Guide for more details about ``foreach_active``.
.. _Using "foreach_active" Effectively: perfguide.html#using-foreach-active-effectively
@@ -2910,7 +2910,7 @@ we have assigned zero to ``b``, though only for the program instances
currently executing--i.e. those where ``a < 0``. After re-establishing the
executing mask with ``unmasked``, we then compare ``b`` to zero--this
comparison is well-defined (and "true") for the program instances where ``a
< 0``, but it is undefed for any program instances where that isn't the
< 0``, but it is undefined for any program instances where that isn't the
case, since the value of ``b`` is undefined for those program instances.
Similar surprising cases can arise when writing to ``varying`` variables
within ``unmasked`` code.