Agree – we definitely shouldn't expose architecture-specific details in the language.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Kiran Pamnany <[email protected]> wrote: > This, to me, sounds like the beginning of a rabbit-hole, which leads to > the same morass of architecture-specific directives that infect many codes, > particularly in HPC where codes can live a long time. I think it'd be > better to tuck this mess away under the hood. > > Turning off bounds-checking isn't architecture-specific--it's an assertion > of your program's correctness. I don't like @simd, but vectorization isn't > completely automatic yet. Atomics exist on most architectures, and you can > do a lot of lock-free data structures with those, so I'm not really arguing > those. In general though, I'd think carefully about any architectural > detail I make visible... one of the big positives of using LLVM is > insulation from the back-end. > >
