From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Nielsen To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc trouble Message-ID: <20031121001947.GK65844@cassie.foobarbaz.net> References: <20031111001624.GA10112@ionkov.net> <20031120143356.GA20235@ionkov.net> <1725.199.98.17.55.1069356471.squirrel@wish> <20031120204935.GD65844@cassie.foobarbaz.net> <055d01c3afa9$7944ed40$b9844051@insultant.net> <3521.199.98.17.58.1069369906.squirrel@wish> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3521.199.98.17.58.1069369906.squirrel@wish> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:19:47 -0800 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 90b9e0d2-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 06:11:46PM -0500, Joel Salomon wrote: > > Thats a valid argument for not having the compiler know about them. We're > discussing the assembler. Or did you mean to argue their existence on the > chip? I can't see that adding *another* kluge atop IA32 can possibly hurt. I don't really think adding SIMDs (a.k.a. vector processors) ,what MMX/SSE are, to the chip was a kludge for IA32. They have a few uses. Touting it as being the best thing since sliced bread for multimedia is a bit much, though. FWIW, PowerPC has SIMDs, too. It's called AltiVec. There's an interesting paper about using AltiVec for crypto here: http://www.simdtech.org/apps/group_public/download.php/22/Cryptography.pdf -- Christopher Nielsen "They who can give up essential liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin