3 ms·
Doesn’t this just make it harder to maintain ports to other architectures though?
by MortyWaves 2y ago
Doesn’t this just make it harder to maintain ports to other architectures though?
- antoinealb 2y agoYes, but on projects like that, ease of maintenance is a secondary priority when compared to performance or throughput.
- secondcoming 2y agoSIMD instructions are already architecture dependent
- epr 2y agoFor what's written in assembly, lack of portability is a given. The only exceptions would presumably be high level entry points called to from C, etc. If you wanted to support multiple targets, you have completely separate assembly modules for each architecture at least. You'd even need to bifurcate further for each simd generation (within x64 for example).
- wolf550e 2y agoThere indeed have been bugs caused by amd64 assembly code assuming unix calling convention being used for Windows builds and causing data corruption. You have to be careful.