Any usable SIMD implementation?

[Temtaime via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 18 April 2016 at 00:27:06 UTC, Joe Duarte wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 at 10:27:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Besides, I think it's a poor design to customize the app for 
>> only one SIMD type. A better idea (I've repeated this ad 
>> nauseum over the years) is to have n modules, one for each 
>> supported SIMD type. Compile and link all of them in, then 
>> detect the SIMD type at runtime and call the corresponding 
>> module. (This is how the D array ops are currently 
>> implemented.)
>
> There are many organizations in the world that are building 
> software in-house, where such software is targeted to modern 
> CPU SIMD types, most typically AVX/AVX2 and crypto instructions.
>

In addition it's COMPILER work, not programmer!
Compiler SHOULD be able to vectorize the code using SSE/AVX 
depending on command line switch. Why i should write all these 
merde ? Let compiler do its work.

Also compiler CAN generate multiple versions of one function 
using different SIMD instructions : Intel C++ Compiler works this 
way : it generates a few versions of a function and checks at 
run-time CPU capabilities and executes the fastest one.