On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Rodrigo Kumpera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2008/12/4 StApostol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> One last question: if one builds a custom version of Mono.Simd (or even
>> integrates it in another assembly), will the runtime still be able to
>> resolve and accelerate the
2008/12/4 StApostol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Jonathan Pryor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 02:26 +0200, StApostol wrote:
>> > Extension methods are great for simplifying the API, but Mono.Simd
>> > should still be usable by C# 2.0 programs.
>>
>>
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Jonathan Pryor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 02:26 +0200, StApostol wrote:
> > Extension methods are great for simplifying the API, but Mono.Simd
> > should still be usable by C# 2.0 programs.
>
> Silly question, but why? Since Mono.Simd will o
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 02:26 +0200, StApostol wrote:
> Extension methods are great for simplifying the API, but Mono.Simd
> should still be usable by C# 2.0 programs.
Silly question, but why? Since Mono.Simd will only be accelerated under
Mono, and Mono supports C# 3, I don't see much use for the
Extension methods are great for simplifying the API, but Mono.Simd should
still be usable by C# 2.0 programs.
___
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 17:24 +, Alan McGovern wrote:
> Out of interest, why do we use static methods currently rather than
> instance methods? Would using instance methods instead of extension
> methods complicate things jit-wise, as API-wise it'd be essentially
> the same.
Then there's documen
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Alan McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Out of interest, why do we use static methods currently rather than
> instance methods? Would using instance methods instead of extension
> methods complicate things jit-wise, as API-wise it'd be essentially
> the same.
>
Y
> The second issue is a limitation of the C# language,
> which require extension methods to be defined of sealed classes. This would
> mean that code written against mono 2.2 version
> of Mono.Simd might not compiler with newer versions.
Well, I'd vote for using the method which is *cleaner* and e
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:mono-devel-list- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Rodrigo Kumpera
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 8:19 AM
> To: mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com
> Subject: [Mono-dev] Incoming changes to Mono.Simd
>
After some discussions with Mark we decided to do a few changes to Mono.Simd
and
it would be really nice to have some feedback from everyone on them.
One of the motivation is that the current C# of Mono.Simd is not endianess
safe and doesn't
work as expected on platforms such as ppc. The other is
10 matches
Mail list logo
