start on SIMD documentation

Walter Bright newshound2 at digitalmars.com
Fri Jan 13 12:41:16 PST 2012


On 1/13/2012 12:27 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
> On 13/01/12 8:02 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
>> Er... is there any reason why we're using such a cryptic PXOR value
>> instead of operator overloading?
>
> I imagine Walter will add the operator overloads later.

Right. simd() is just the bottom layer building block. It's a compiler 
intrinsic, and I don't want to make every overload a compiler intrinsic.


> The simd(op, ...) syntax is more flexible though because it allows you to select
> instructions that don't directly map to any standard operator (e.g. shuffles).

What's our vector, Victor?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVq4_HhBK8Y


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list