4 ms·

"Hyperscan Things That Didn’t Make It Into Open Source Hyperscan ... Ports to non-x86 platforms." This is a big shame, and undercuts the title. Is there any wa

• glangdale 8y ago
  I suppose "Some Modern CPUs" was too long-winded a title? As I said, it doesn't take a genius to understand Intel's motivations. They bought the project, after all. Not being @ Intel anymore, I don't have access to the older stuff, and even if I did, the codebase has diverged significantly since. Without going on too much of a tirade - the experience of developing for all those platforms really sucked. Almost all the non-x86 platforms had significant bugs in their toolchains. One of the MIPS variants (particular architecture elided to spare the guilty) had bugs in their gcc intrinsics in a way that suggested that no-one had ever done any significant third-party dev on the platform. Big-endian was also a huge PITA. It was a ton of work to keep all those systems alive, and our machine rack looked like a zoo of dev boards and weirdo devices. In the "ure3" system I mention, I would make retargetability/portability to other systems a first-class goal. One way of achieving this is not having such a huge profusion of methods and complexity. Hyperscan is over-engineered for many use cases if you aren't a network company looking to scan 5,000 complex regexes in streaming mode at hopefully maximal performance.