November 02, 2012 Re: A little Py Vs C++ | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Walter Bright wrote:
> On 11/2/2012 11:19 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> >I can absolutely understand why he did it but it would be really nice if you (Walter, Andrei and probably others as well) could be more transparent about things like these. I think this would really help the community.
>
> I apologize for being circumspect about this, but I have to respect peoples' privacy and I cleared what I posted about Remedy with them before posting it.
There is no need to reveal anything private just because you have a road map.
Jens
|
November 02, 2012 Re: A little Py Vs C++ | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jens Mueller | On 11/2/2012 3:10 PM, Jens Mueller wrote:
> I see. Thanks for clarifying.
> If I want fast vector operations I have to use core.simd. The built-in
> vector operations won't fit the bill.
At the moment, yes.
However, Manu is working on developing a higher order layer.
|
November 03, 2012 Re: A little Py Vs C++ | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright Attachments:
| On 3 November 2012 01:41, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote: > On 11/2/2012 3:10 PM, Jens Mueller wrote: > >> I see. Thanks for clarifying. >> If I want fast vector operations I have to use core.simd. The built-in >> vector operations won't fit the bill. >> > I think a better quote would be "If i want *HARDWARE* vector operations..."; this is not automatically faster by nature, it requires strict self-control in terms of application, and very careful attention if you want your code to be portable. At the moment, yes. > > However, Manu is working on developing a higher order layer. > I have a fork; some people are using it already. It still needs a lot of work though; some compilers missing parts, platforms not supported. That said, it's not an effort to address D's natural vector syntax, the key goal is to provide a hardware SIMD API that is as orthogonal as possible and portable (with confidence it will run reasonably well). I wonder if druntime could be enhanced to use the SIMD stuff though in the functions that perform the natural vector operations, might offer some nice little boosts. |
November 03, 2012 Re: A little Py Vs C++ | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Manu wrote:
> On 3 November 2012 01:41, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/2/2012 3:10 PM, Jens Mueller wrote:
> >
> >> I see. Thanks for clarifying.
> >> If I want fast vector operations I have to use core.simd. The built-in
> >> vector operations won't fit the bill.
> >>
> >
> I think a better quote would be "If i want *HARDWARE* vector operations..."; this is not automatically faster by nature, it requires strict self-control in terms of application, and very careful attention if you want your code to be portable.
>
> At the moment, yes.
> >
> > However, Manu is working on developing a higher order layer.
> >
>
> I have a fork; some people are using it already. It still needs a lot of
> work though; some compilers missing parts, platforms not supported.
> That said, it's not an effort to address D's natural vector syntax, the key
> goal is to provide a hardware SIMD API that is as orthogonal as possible
> and portable (with confidence it will run reasonably well).
> I wonder if druntime could be enhanced to use the SIMD stuff though in the
> functions that perform the natural vector operations, might offer some nice
> little boosts.
Cool.
It'll be nice though if D's vector operations could be expressed on top
of it. I mean a[] + b[] is so much easier to read.
Jens
|
November 03, 2012 Re: A little Py Vs C++ | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
On 2012-39-03 12:11, Jens Mueller <jens.k.mueller@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> I have a fork; some people are using it already. It still needs a lot of >> work though; some compilers missing parts, platforms not supported. >> That said, it's not an effort to address D's natural vector syntax, the key >> goal is to provide a hardware SIMD API that is as orthogonal as possible >> and portable (with confidence it will run reasonably well). >> I wonder if druntime could be enhanced to use the SIMD stuff though in the >> functions that perform the natural vector operations, might offer some nice >> little boosts. > > Cool. > It'll be nice though if D's vector operations could be expressed on top > of it. I mean a[] + b[] is so much easier to read. Perhaps I'm the confused one here, but as I understand it, that's the whole point of the latter part of the paragraph - array operations are implemented in druntime, and that implementation might benefit from using SIMD instructions. -- Simen |
November 03, 2012 Re: A little Py Vs C++ | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> On 2012-39-03 12:11, Jens Mueller <jens.k.mueller@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >>I have a fork; some people are using it already. It still needs a lot of
> >>work though; some compilers missing parts, platforms not supported.
> >>That said, it's not an effort to address D's natural vector
> >>syntax, the key
> >>goal is to provide a hardware SIMD API that is as orthogonal as possible
> >>and portable (with confidence it will run reasonably well).
> >>I wonder if druntime could be enhanced to use the SIMD stuff
> >>though in the
> >>functions that perform the natural vector operations, might
> >>offer some nice
> >>little boosts.
> >
> >Cool.
> >It'll be nice though if D's vector operations could be expressed on top
> >of it. I mean a[] + b[] is so much easier to read.
>
> Perhaps I'm the confused one here, but as I understand it, that's the whole point of the latter part of the paragraph - array operations are implemented in druntime, and that implementation might benefit from using SIMD instructions.
Sorry. I'm the one being confused. You're right Simen.
Jens
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation