On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 12:17 AM Haibo Yan <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 11:52 PM John Naylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I don't know if that's relevant for current server hardware, so it >> could be pointless. I'm personally not a fan of inline assembly, but I >> also didn't yet want to put in the effort to alter generated code. I >> don't think it would be very hard to do, however. > > > Thanks, that makes sense as an explanation for why the inline asm is there > today. But it also sounds like this is more of a temporary implementation > choice than a conclusion that intrinsics are unsuitable. I can see how my words imply that, but after a moment's thought I still don't want to put in that effort without a good reason. For starters, what I said above about "not very hard" may be wishful thinking. > If so, I wonder whether it would be better to treat an intrinsics-based > version as the preferred end state unless benchmarks show a clear regression. To meet your criterion, we'd not only have to rewrite it correctly, we'd have to test on multiple vendors of non-Apple hardware and multiple compiler vendors/versions (at least where the binary output is different) to prove we haven't caused a regression. I wouldn't recommend anyone to accept that challenge as stated, since the risk/reward ratio is just not favorable. Especially considering we're 2 1/2 weeks away from feature freeze. -- John Naylor Amazon Web Services
