On 13.01.2012 12:21, Marco Leise wrote:
Am 13.01.2012, 11:37 Uhr, schrieb Iain Buclaw <[email protected]>:
On 13 January 2012 04:16, Marco Leise <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 12.01.2012, 16:40 Uhr, schrieb Iain Buclaw <[email protected]>:
On 12 January 2012 08:29, Manu <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12 January 2012 02:46, F i L <[email protected]> wrote:
Well the idea is you can have both. You could even have a:
Vector2!(Transition!(Vector4!(Transition!float))) // headache
or something more practical...
Vector4!(Vector4!float) // Matrix4f
Vector4!(Transition!(Vector4!float)) // Smooth Matrix4f
Or anything like that. I should point out that my example didn't
make it
clear that a Matrix4!(Transition!float) would be pointless
compared to
Transition!(Matrix4!float) unless each Transition held it's own
iteration
value. Example:
struct Transition(T, bool isTimer = false) {
T value, start, target;
alias value this;
static if (isTimer) {
float time, speed;
void update() {
time += speed;
value = start + ((target - start) * time);
}
}
}
That way each channel could update on it's own time frame. There may
even
be a way to have each channel be it's own separate Transition type.
Which
could be interesting. I'm still playing with possibilities.
The vector's aren't quite like that.. you can't make a hardware vector
out
of anything, only things the hardware supports: __vector(float[4]) for
instance.
You can make your own vector template that wraps those I guess if you
want
to make a matrix that way, but it sounds inefficient. When it comes to
writing the vector/matrix operations, if you're assuming generic code,
you
won't be able to make it anywhere near as good as if you write a
Matrix4x4
class.
I think that is also possible if that's what you want to do, and
I see
no
reason why any of these constructs wouldn't be efficient (or
supported).
You can probably even try it out now with what Walter has already
done...
Cool, I was unaware Walter had begun implementing SIMD operations.
I'll
have to build DMD and test them out. What's the syntax like right
now?
The syntax for the types (supporting basic arithmetic) look like
__vector(float[4]) float4vector.. Try it on the latest GDC.
This will change. I'm uploading core.simd later which has a Vector!()
template, and aliases for vfloat4, vdouble2, vint4, etc...
I don't plan on implementing vector instrinsics in the same way Walter
is doing it.
a) GCC already prodives it's own intrinsics
b) The intrinsics I see Walter has already implemented in core.simd is
restricted to x86 line of architectures.
Regards
Looks like you two should discuss this. I see how Walter envisioned D to
have an inline assembler unlike C, which resulted in several vendor
specific
syntaxes and how GCC has already done the bulk load of work to
support SIMD
and multiple platforms. Naturally you don't want to redo that work to
wrap
Walter's immature approach around the solid base in GDC.
Can you please have a meeting together with the LDC devs and decide on a
fair way for everyone to support inline ASM and SIMD intrinsics? Once
there
is a common ground for three compilers other compilers will want to
go the
same route and everyone is happy with source code that can be
compiled by
every compiler.
I think this is a fundamental decision for a systems programming
language.
Who are the LDC devs? :)
:) Actually I don't know. Only heard about this "LLVM" that's supposed
to be good at source-to-source compilation and is more of a framework
than a single compiler. And then LDC emerged around that and I recently
heard that 'its pretty much up to date'. Since you are working on GDC it
seemed natural someone else must be actively maintaining LDC...
But dsource.org shows commits that are at least 2 years old. Look at the
positive side: One less party to satisfy!
It was at bitbucket (updated ~6 months ago), but it seems it has moved
to github (updated 2 days ago) https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc
