On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:19 AM Matti Picus <matti.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/20 8:02 pm, Devulapalli, Raghuveer wrote: > > > > On top of that the performance implications aren’t clear. Software > > implementations of hardware instructions might perform worse and might > > not even produce the same result. > > > > The proposal for universal intrinsics does not enable replacing an > intrinsic on one platform with a software emulation on another: the > intrinsics are meant to be compile-time defines that overlay the > universal intrinsic with a platform specific one. In order to use a new > intrinsic, it must have parallel intrinsics on the other platforms, or > cannot be used there: "NPY_CPU_HAVE(FEATURE_NAME)" will always return > false so the compiler will not even build a loop for that platform. I > will try to clarify that intention in the NEP. > > > I hope there will not be a demand to use many non-universal intrinsics > in ufuncs, we will need to work this out on a case-by-case basis in each > ufunc. Does that sound reasonable? Are there intrinsics you have already > used that have no parallel on other platforms? > > Intrinsics are not an irreversible change, they are, after all, private. The question is whether they are sufficiently useful to justify the time spent on them. I don't think we will know that until we attempt actual implementations. There will probably be some changes as a result of experience, but that is normal. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
