Hi Eduardo,
Thanks for chiming in. Just one precision:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 06:41:54 -
Eduardo Ponce wrote:
> In my experience there is no single SIMD library that wraps all possible set
> of vector instructions across the most common architectures and at the same
> time provides
In my experience there is no single SIMD library that wraps all possible set of
vector instructions across the most common architectures and at the same time
provides support for all popular compilers while supporting C and C++11/14. (I
mention C because there is an issue for Arrow support in
For the record, a PR is now up for bundling xsimd with Arrow C++:
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/9556
Regards
Antoine.
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 11:14:45 +0800
Yibo Cai wrote:
> This topic was talked in an earlier thread [1], but not landed yet.
>
> PR
; Anyway, those are my thoughts for now.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joe Duarte
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Antoine Pitrou
> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 2:49 AM
> To: dev@arrow.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [C++] adopting an SIMD library - xsimd
>
> O
hers.
Anyway, those are my thoughts for now.
Cheers,
Joe Duarte
-Original Message-
From: Antoine Pitrou
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 2:49 AM
To: dev@arrow.apache.org
Subject: Re: [C++] adopting an SIMD library - xsimd
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:47:21 -0800
Micah Kornfield wrote:
> Th
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:47:21 -0800
Micah Kornfield wrote:
> That is unfortunate, like I said if the consensus is xsimd, let's move
> forward with that.
I would say it's a soft consensus for now, and I would welcome more
viewpoints on the matter.
Regards
Antoine.
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at
That is unfortunate, like I said if the consensus is xsimd, let's move
forward with that.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 2:45 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> There is an std::simd being envisioned.
> https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/experimental/simd/simd
>
> The problem is that we need an
There is an std::simd being envisioned.
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/experimental/simd/simd
The problem is that we need an implementation that's C++11- or
C++14-compliant, that works on major compilers, and that provides
accelerations for common instruction sets. It doesn't seem to be the
I'm open to x-simd if others think it is the best option. I think the last
time this came up I expressed this opinion, but if possible it would be
nice to use something that is on its way to become a standard to avoid
abandonment issues but I don't know enough about the space to understand if
Thanks for comments on the SIMD related PR:
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/9424.
Agree to adopt the *xsimd *as the SIMD wrapper library for Arrow to avoid a
large maintenance burden. It makes sense.
It seems *ximd *is designed for mathematics calculating and it lacks the
functions like
Le 09/02/2021 à 10:36, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
>
> Note that we need to decouple the SIMD level available at compile-time
> from the SIMD level available at runtime. That is, we typically build
> optional AVX512 accelerations at compile-time, but only enable them at
> runtime if the CPU
Note that we need to decouple the SIMD level available at compile-time
from the SIMD level available at runtime. That is, we typically build
optional AVX512 accelerations at compile-time, but only enable them at
runtime if the CPU supports AVX512 (and if the environment variable
For what it's worth, I have been using xsimd at my job for ~1 year, and can
only recommend it (optimization of ML clustering code on CPU).
Straightforward to use, easy to extend to support additional instructions.
The API is clear and the implementation follows modern C++ practices.
On Tue, Feb
This topic was talked in an earlier thread [1], but not landed yet.
PR https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/9424 optimizes ByteStreamSplit with
Arm64 NEON, maybe it's a good chance to evaluate possibility of simplifying
arch dependent SIMD code with an SIMD library.
I did a quick comparison
14 matches
Mail list logo
