Don Clugston wrote: > On 02/11/12 10:01, Jens Mueller wrote: > >Jacob Carlborg wrote: > >>On 2012-11-01 23:51, Walter Bright wrote: > >> > >>>What about all your feature requests? I think you've made more than > >>>anyone, by a factor of 10 at least! > >>> > >>>:-) > >>> > >>>As for Manu's request > >>> > >>>http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8108 > >>> > >>>I've gone over with him why he needs it, and there's no other reasonable > >>>way. He needs it for real code in a real application. > >> > >>This is quite interesting. Manu comes in from basically nowhere and > >>fairly quickly manage to convince Walter to implement at least two > >>feature requests, this one and the SIMD support. I'm not saying that > >>they shouldn't have been implemented. Although I think something > >>like AST macros could possible solve issue 8108 and a whole bunch of > >>other features, a few already present in the language. > > > >I had the same thought when reading this. Very disappointing. An issue > >with zero votes is fixed instead of more important ones. Why do I vote > >anyway? > >Regarding SIMD I have the feeling that because it is built into the > >compiler static vectors have actually failed what they promised. I > >thought D proposed a portable way of vector operations such that you > >write > >float[4] = a[] + b[] > >and the compiler generates SIMD code for you. > > Not for short vectors. They are more like the builtin operations in > Fortran, ie designed for large vectors. More for scientific kinds of > applications than games. (The two applications look superficially > similar, but in practice they have little in common).
Okay. For me they look the same. Can you elaborate, please? Assume I want to add two float vectors which is common in both games and scientific computing. The only difference is in games their length is usually 3 or 4 whereas in scientific computing they are of arbitrary length. Why do I need instrinsics to support the game setting? Jens