Re: [boost] [gsoc] boost.simd news from the front.

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] boost.simd news from the front.
From: David A. Greene (greened_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-11 11:45:20

"Gruenke, Matt" <mgruenke_at_[hidden]> writes:

> As a potential user, I support Joel & Mathieu continuing on their
> current track.  That said, I hope work on explicit vector programming
> and auto-vectorization will continue.  I would be interested and
> supportive of anyone exploring these areas, but I feel it's
> unnecessary and not worthwhile to hold up Boost.SIMD in hopes of
> something better.

I'm not saying we should hold up boost.simd.  I'm saying that the
author's claims that the compiler can't do much of this is flat out
wrong.  I fear they are going to lead a lot of people down the wrong
path.

There is a place for boost.simd.  Absolutely there is.  But the way it's
positioned by the linked-to presentation is misleading and very wrong.

Vectorizing compilers exist today.  They've existing since the 1970's.

                           -Dave