On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:08 AM, orthochronous <[email protected]>wrote:
> As I said at the outset, I don't expect anything to be done about > actually implementing [SIMD] now, but it'd be reassuring to check > that the foundations being laid aren't precluding this being > implemented efficiently in the future. > > You and Ben are hereby elected. My problem with SIMD, right now, is in three parts: - I don't know enough about it to deal with it. - I'm already at my overflow threshold; I don't have the conceptual capacity to take this on right now. - As you pointed out, there isn't any general consensus about how SIMD compute models work across the candidate processors. Given this, I think your basic model - that we should handle them for now with intrinsics - is correct. I'm also fairly confident that we are in no *worse* a position than anybody else. Ben's points about alignment and offset specification are well taken; alignment iswhat the (undocumented) declarations part of the structure definition mechanism is for, and I know about the need to deal with offsets. Other than that, what do we *know* we are missing? shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
