== Quote from Don ([email protected])'s article > Jeremie Pelletier wrote: > > While writing SSE assembly by hand in D is fun and works well, I'm wondering if the compiler has intrinsics for its instruction set, much like xmmintrin.h in C. > > > > The reason is that the compiler can usually reorder the intrinsics to > > optimize performance. > > > > I could always use C code to implement my SSE routines but then I'd lose the ability to inline them in D. > I know this is an old post, but since it wasn't answered... > Make sure you know what the SSE intrinsics actually *do* in VC++/Intel! > I've read many complaints about how poorly they perform on all compilers > -- the penalty for allowing them to be reordered is that extra > instructions are often added, which means that straightforward C code is > sometimes faster! > In this regard, I'm personally excited about array operations. I think > the need for SSE intrinsics and vectorisation is a result of abstract > inversion: the instruction set is higher-level than the "high level > language"! Array operations allow D to catch up with asm again. When > array operations get implemented properly, it'll be interesting to see > how much need for SSE intrinsics remains.
What's wrong with the current implementation of array ops (other than a few misc. bugs that have already been filed)? I thought they already use SSE if available.
