Tyler certainly doesn't speak for me on this, but the L4 guys aren't doing much SIMD support in their OS, so I'm not sure what the point of this exchange is, exactly.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Ben Kloosterman <[email protected]>wrote: > It seems wrong that all the guys working on the L4 series OS have got it > to the point where they removed ( most of ?) the asm and made it more > portable while the libs are going the other way and we are seeing more > assembly. > > > > Ben > > > > *From:* Tyler Tricker [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, August 16, 2010 9:42 AM > *To:* [email protected]; Discussions about the BitC language > > *Subject:* Re: [bitc-dev] Bitc and Simd > > > > The support lib would be written with BitC prototypes and type signature > but with two different bodies( one using that platforms assembly and another > using generic reference implementation). I do understand though that users > should be strongly discouraged from writing code in this way. Correctness > can be resolved by testing both the reference and assembly versions against > each other. > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev > >
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
