[vector] RFR : Removed subAll() and few javadoc changes

[Viswanathan, Sandhya]

Hi Kishor,

The patch looks good to me. I will push it.

Best Regards,
Sandhya


-----Original Message-----
From: panama-dev [mailto:panama-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Kharbas, Kishor
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 6:14 PM
To: Ningsheng Jian (Arm Technology China) <Ningsheng.Jian at arm.com>; Yang Zhang (Arm Technology China) <Yang.Zhang at arm.com>; panama-dev at openjdk.java.net
Cc: nd <nd at arm.com>
Subject: RE: [vector] RFR : Removed subAll() and few javadoc changes

Hi,

I have a follow on patch making corrections to and adding missing Javadoc. This patch includes the changes in the earlier patch (below).
Summary of changes -
1. Made Javadoc corrections to fix all doclint errors.
2. Remove VectorHelper classes.
3. Remove suball()

Link: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kkharbas/vector-api/webrev.javadoc.00

Requesting a review.

Regards,
Kishor

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ningsheng Jian (Arm Technology China) 
> [mailto:Ningsheng.Jian at arm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 2:38 AM
> To: Kharbas, Kishor <kishor.kharbas at intel.com>; Yang Zhang (Arm 
> Technology China) <Yang.Zhang at arm.com>; panama-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Cc: nd <nd at arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [vector] RFR : Removed subAll() and few javadoc changes
> 
> Hi Kishor,
> 
> On 02/26/2019 03:31 AM, Kharbas, Kishor wrote:
> > Hi Yang,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Yang Zhang (Arm Technology China) [mailto:Yang.Zhang at arm.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 12:44 AM
> >> To: Kharbas, Kishor <kishor.kharbas at intel.com>; panama- 
> >> dev at openjdk.java.net
> >> Subject: RE: [vector] RFR : Removed subAll() and few javadoc 
> >> changes
> >>
> >> Hi Kishor
> >>
> >> Currently I'm implementing subAll() for AArch64.
> >> Could you please help to explain:
> >> 1. What's the motivation of removing subAll() ?
> >
> > As part of API review, we found that subAll() does not have a clear
> semantic meaning. So it was decided to remove it.
> >
> 
> OK, thanks! I assume the "API review" work is public, and then we will 
> try not to miss any specific API change reviews. We all don't want any 
> API to be biased to any particular architecture. :-)
> 
> >> 2. If subAll() should be removed,  why not remove the middle-end 
> >> and the
> >> x86 backend about subAll() ?
> >
> > Yes, the implementation of it should be removed too. I focused on 
> > api
> changes so did not remove the other parts.
> >
> I think it's OK to do that in a separate patch.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ningsheng