3 ms·
Ispc is great but I think you’re also saying that: - it would be better if the intrinsics had sensible names. I couldn’t agree more. - it would be better if c
by pizlonator 2y ago
Ispc is great but I think you’re also saying that:
- it would be better if the intrinsics had sensible names. I couldn’t agree more.
- it would be better if compilers consistently did a good job of implementing them. I wonder which compilers do a bad job? Does clang do a good job or not so much?
I think intrinsics make sense for the case where the language being used is not otherwise simd and that language already has value types (so it’s easy to add a vector type). It would be great if they at least worked consistently well and had decent names in that case.
- neonsunset 2y agoIntrinsics have somewhat saner names in C#, and unify under the same types for both portable and platform-specific variants (Vector64/128/256/512<T>, numeric operators on them and methods on VectorXXX.* or Sse42/Avx/AdvSimd/etc.)
- saagarjha 2y agoI have yet to see a compiler that does a good job with autovectorization.