On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Tyler Tricker <[email protected]> wrote: > Instead of SIMD built into the compiler, what would be the downsides in > having a generic assembly function( like C's asm but with a type signature) > and putting SIMD into a support library (a support library that could be > made to support things like OpenCL)? A support library could also have a > reference implementation for vanilla instruction sets.
My personal opinion as a language user (rather than a language implementor) is the "use our partially reliable research prototype syntax, or else do absolutely everything yourself in assembly" is a dichotomy that new languages often seem to end up presentingthe user with, and it's precisely because I don't want either that I still program in C++. It's a shame, because I'd really like to use a language with more programmer support and higher level features. The example routine that I posted earlier in the thread shows the kind of things that a programmer might want to do: it combines intrinsics with "scalar" bit-shifting and looping that I'd both prefer not to write in raw assembly and which don't seem to need it. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
