4 ms·
Returning 0 for undefined table entries is the obvious thing to do. Setting these entries to 2 is a bit of a conceptual leap, even though it would have prevente
by kens 2y ago
Returning 0 for undefined table entries is the obvious thing to do. Setting these entries to 2 is a bit of a conceptual leap, even though it would have prevented the FDIV error and it makes the PLA simpler. So I can't fault Intel for this.
- garaetjjte 2y agoI would have expected that instead of manually picking a value they would be specified as "don't care". I guess optimizer software like Espresso should allow for that?
- Sniffnoy 2y agoIt's not really a conceptual leap if you've ever had to work with "don't care" cases before...
- mjevans 2y agoIt's a NULL / 'do not care' issue. 0 isn't a reserved out of band value, it's payload data and anything beyond the bounds should have been DNC. It's possible some other result, likely aligned to an easy binary multiple would still produce a square block of 2, and that allowing the far edges to float to some other value could yield a slightly more compact logic array. Back-filling the entire side to the clamped upper value doesn't cost that much more though, and is known to solve the issue. As pointed out elsewhere, that sort of solution would also be faster for engineering time, fit within the planned space budget, and best of all reduces conative load. It's obviously correct when looking at the bug.