21 ms·
> AVX features There is also a proof that they can be shipped for a complex runtime without such level of pain: added back in .NET Core 3.0[0] and there were r
by neonsunset 2y ago
> AVX features
There is also a proof that they can be shipped for a complex runtime without such level of pain: added back in .NET Core 3.0[0] and there were relatively few AVX-related bugs in the compiler since then and all of them were fixed in servicing (patch) releases upon discovery, without deprecation.
[0]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.runtime.intrinsics.x86.avx2 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.runtime....
- kaba0 2y agoI mean, AVX was buggy itself in plenty of hardware for a very long time, it’s not only on the software side.
- neonsunset 2y agoDo you know which CPU cores was it buggy in for a very long time? The ones that everyone uses had flawless support for more than a decade. In either case, I don't see how that disproves the argument that support of hardware features like AVX in a runtime comparable to JVM can be done well. (though I'm biased to say low-level features are a weak point of JVM and a strong point of .NET, you don't have to sacrifice high-level convenience in other areas to get that)