Subject: Re: [boost] Going forward with Boost.SIMD
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-19 18:41:32
On 18/04/13 13:28, Tim Blechmann wrote:
> hi mathias,
>> Unfortunately the concurrency/parallelism group has decided that they do
>> not want C++ to provide types representing SIMD registers.
>> I'm afraid I don't quite understand the rationale for such a refusal;
>> proposing more high-level constructs similar to valarray (or to our own
>> library NT2) was suggested, but that's obviously a more complex and
>> limited API, not a basic building block to program portably a specific
>> processor unit.
> hmm ... that's quite unfortunate ... a memory-based interface like
> valarray just does not compose and is pretty useless for many use cases
> ... would be quite interested to hear the reasons for the refusal, do
> you have any details?
I'm not sure I can publish the minutes here.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk