Feedback-ID: i52e14683:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-1015-gaf7d526680-fm-20220929.001-gaf7d5266
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a8cc2aff-98fa-4100-b66e-e2a106e7a134@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKF5_T=xVWAmo45ifoG1OA+0fn+z2OG27aNRUvK7TPmsnCEXpw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKF5_T=xVWAmo45ifoG1OA+0fn+z2OG27aNRUvK7TPmsnCEXpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 23:04:29 +0200
From: "Quentin Carbonneaux" <quentin@c9x.me>
To: ~mpu/qbe@lists.sr.ht
Subject: Re: Any interest in SIMD types?
Content-Type: text/plain

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022, at 22:11, Harris Snyder wrote:
> Would there be any interest in adding SIMD types?

Hi Harris,

Thanks for your message to the list. The general trend lately
in qbe has been to "broaden" the surface, with new archs
supported (apple hardware) and new IL capabilities (thread
local variables). I would now like us to revert to improving
the core compilation algorithms. Adding SIMD types is not
really aligned with that and may well complicate things.

Additionally, I am under the impression that SIMD types are
not uniform enough across platforms to warrant a place in
the IL. I may be proved wrong here, though.

For the above reasons, I am not presently interested in
supoorting SIMD types.