Subject: Re: [boost] [simd] Hardware support
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-08 13:21:01
On 8 April 2017 at 13:21, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 04/08/17 14:06, Mathias Gaunard via Boost wrote:
>> On 8 April 2017 at 11:14, Bjorn Reese via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> Boost.SIMD only supports x86.
>>> Are there plans for ARM NEON and/or MIPS SIMD?
>> Other platforms are supported in the proprietary version of the library.
> Will those be eventually included in Boost.SIMD, if it's accepted into
Being no longer affiliated with NumScale, the company behind this library,
I cannot say.
The original plan was to keep support for unusual and/or recent
architectures proprietary, while the open-source version would get backends
once the underlying technology becomes mainstream enough.
In practice I would not expect much; Boost.SIMD was initially developed by
a French university but is now handled by a company whose leanings towards
open-source might be less open.
This is an important point, IMO, and it should be clarified before review.
> If there are no plans to improve Boost.SIMD in order not to harm the
> commercial version then that makes Boost.SIMD significantly less
> attractive. Personally, I would vote for rejection in this case.
I personally have severe concerns about all aspects of intellectual
property surrounding that library and the people behind it.
For example, when I did a talk about Boost.SIMD at a conference using
nothing but open-source material, my employer received a cease-and-desist
letter and was asked to destroy all material related to Boost.SIMD as
NumScale claimed it was their property. My employer complied to be on the
I believe that during the review we should definitely take into account how
the existence of the two versions of the software can be harmful to users.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk