Does dmd have SSE intrinsics?

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Don (nospam at nospam.com)'s article
> Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
> > While writing SSE assembly by hand in D is fun and works well, I'm wondering
if the compiler has intrinsics for its instruction set, much like xmmintrin.h in C.
> >
> > The reason is that the compiler can usually reorder the intrinsics to optimize
performance.
> >
> > I could always use C code to implement my SSE routines but then I'd lose the
ability to inline them in D.
> I know this is an old post, but since it wasn't answered...
> Make sure you know what the SSE intrinsics actually *do* in VC++/Intel!
> I've read many complaints about how poorly they perform on all compilers
> -- the penalty for allowing them to be reordered is that extra
> instructions are often added, which means that straightforward C code is
> sometimes faster!
> In this regard, I'm personally excited about array operations. I think
> the need for SSE intrinsics and vectorisation is a result of abstract
> inversion: the instruction set is higher-level than the "high level
> language"! Array operations allow D to catch up with asm again. When
> array operations get implemented properly, it'll be interesting to see
> how much need for SSE intrinsics remains.

What's wrong with the current implementation of array ops (other than a few misc.
bugs that have already been filed)?  I thought they already use SSE if available.