On 10/23/2013 02:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > Out of curiosity, did you consider and/or discuss with Richard whether or not > to make these target-dependent or target-independent builtins? I realize it's > a bit problematic with Richard being involved during the NDA portion and > someone else during the review/integration portion, but that's unfortunately > where we are.
I suggested that they be target independent. I suggested that there was nothing in MPX that couldn't be done generically, if slower, on non-MPX hardware. E.g. there's no reason why bounds couldn't be packed into a double-word integer, and the checking builtins completely outlined into a runtime library. I suggested that the optimization done on the bound type would help a generic mudflap replacement. r~
