Any usable SIMD implementation?

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 4/6/2016 7:25 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Sure, but it's an ongoing maintenance task, constantly requiring
> population with metadata for new processors that become available.
> Remember, most processors are arm processors, and there are like 20
> manufacturers of arm chips, and many of those come in a series of
> minor variations with/without sub-features present, and in a lot of
> cases, each permutation of features attached to random manufacturers
> arm chip 'X' doesn't actually have a name to describe it. It's also
> completely impractical to declare a particular arm chip by name when
> compiling for arm. It's a sloppy relationship comparing intel and AMD
> let alone the myriad of arm chips available.
> TL;DR, defining architectures with an intel-centric naming convention
> is a very bad idea.

You're not making a good case for a standard language defined set of definitions 
for all these (they'll always be obsolete, inadequate and probably wrong, as you 
point out).