On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM, inhahe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Dan Upton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> >> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Why wouldn't the compilers support it? It's part of the x86 >>> architexture, >>> isn't it? >> >> Yeah, but I don't know if it uses it by default, and my guess is it >> depends on how the compiler back end goes about optimizing the code >> for whether it will see data access/computation patterns amenable to >> SIMD. > > perhaps you explicitly use them with some extended syntax or something? >
Hey, I learned something today. http://www.tuleriit.ee/progs/rexample.php Also, from the gcc manpage, apparently 387 is the default when compiling for 32 bit architectures, and using sse instructions is default on x86-64 architectures, but you can use -march=(some architecture with simd instructions), -msse, -msse2, -msse3, or -mfpmath=(one of 387, sse, or sse,387) to get the compiler to use them. As long as we're talking about compilers and such... anybody want to chip in how this works in Python bytecode or what the bytecode interpreter does? Okay, wait, before anybody says that's implementation-dependent: does anybody want to chip in what the CPython implementation does? (or any other implementation they're familiar with, I guess) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
