Subject: Re: [boost] SIMD implementation of uBLAS
From: Nasos Iliopoulos (nasos_i_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-29 09:52:20
If I ever had to choose I would go with boost.SIMD, because the folks
at Metascale have put some really hard work shaping their library and a
custom solution would only be ugly plagiarism.
Also in that case consider that you outsource one of your major
problems: supporting new vector instructions. You only work on them if
nobody supports boost.SIMD anymore.
On 05/29/2013 09:40 AM, Aditya Avinash wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Joel Falcou <joel.falcou_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> See our work on Boost.SIMD ...
> I have a question specific to you. Implementing uBLAS with it's own SIMD
> code and using uBLAS with Boost.SIMD, which of these can be more faster?
> -- Aditya Avinash Atluri
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk