Re: Compiler support for Intel-MMX?

Olivier Lefevre <nnylfv@ny.ubs.com>
4 May 1998 23:12:20 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Compiler support for Intel-MMX? kyoung@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (1998-04-15)
Re: Compiler support for Intel-MMX? fpeelo@portablesolutions.com (Frank Peelo) (1998-04-18)
Re: Compiler support for Intel-MMX? Gorup@wwa-fs.bayern.de (Andreas v. Gorup) (1998-04-18)
Re: Compiler support for Intel-MMX? mtiomkin@iil.intel.com (Michael Tiomkin) (1998-04-21)
Re: Compiler support for Intel-MMX? ba2395@fen.baynet.de (Florian Klaempfl) (1998-04-29)
Re: Compiler support for Intel-MMX? nnylfv@ny.ubs.com (Olivier Lefevre) (1998-05-04)
Re: Compiler support for Intel-MMX? Peter.Damron@Eng.Sun.COM (1998-05-07)
Re: Compiler support for Intel-MMX? meyer@lps.u-psud.fr (meyer) (1998-05-07)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Olivier Lefevre <nnylfv@ny.ubs.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 4 May 1998 23:12:20 -0400
Organization: Union Bank of Switzerland, New York site
References: 98-04-068 98-04-081
Keywords: 386, optimize

Michael Tiomkin wrote:


> From 1996, Intel tried to persuade compiler vendors to start using
> the "intrinsics" approach for MMX. The intrinsics are something
> between the direct C support and inlined assembly: you have a set
> of C "functions" that can be inlined into MMX (or other processor
> extravaganza) instructions.


Am I correct that this is also the approach adopted by SUN in their
VIS SDK or am I off the mark? Even if I am correct there is a big
difference, namely that SUN's "VIS macros" are available to users
whereas Intel's "intrinsics" seem to belong within the compiler,
leaving users w/ nothing but assembly if they want to write MMX code
by themselves (and a compiler that doesn't support intrinsics, that
is). Again, is this correct?


Thanks,


-- O.L.
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.