By: Jan Wassenberg (jan.wassenberg.delete@this.gmail.com), May 29, 2022 12:51 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Jukka Larja (roskakori2006.delete@this.gmail.com) on May 24, 2022 7:38 am wrote:
> Not that well really. What you describe pretty obviously has significant development
> cost, when considering what is significant for us (also considering benefit of moving
> from SSE2 to AVX or AVX-512. We haven't yet even done much with SSE2).
>
> A realistic option for us would be something that's basically a compile flag and produces a fat binary or
> something like that. For whatever autovectorization compiler manages and whatever is in third party code.
hm, in my experience autovectorization is unfortunately not going to deliver much :) And even a fat binary currently requires quite a bit of legwork and build system changes.
> Not that well really. What you describe pretty obviously has significant development
> cost, when considering what is significant for us (also considering benefit of moving
> from SSE2 to AVX or AVX-512. We haven't yet even done much with SSE2).
>
> A realistic option for us would be something that's basically a compile flag and produces a fat binary or
> something like that. For whatever autovectorization compiler manages and whatever is in third party code.
hm, in my experience autovectorization is unfortunately not going to deliver much :) And even a fat binary currently requires quite a bit of legwork and build system changes.