[PD-dev] gcc 4.1 and auto-vectorization

Hans-Christoph Steiner HANS at EDS.ORG
Sun Nov 19 21:35:46 CET 2006

On Nov 19, 2006, at 5:13 AM, Thomas Grill wrote:

> Am 19.11.2006 um 05:00 schrieb Hans-Christoph Steiner:
>> On Nov 18, 2006, at 8:07 PM, Thomas Grill wrote:
>>> Am 18.11.2006 um 22:16 schrieb Mathieu Bouchard:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>>>> I really doubt that the gcc devs put a lot of effort into  
>>>>> something that has no effect. Perhaps not for Pd, that may be  
>>>>> true.  But they are talking about vectorizing loops, it may not  
>>>>> be the best thing to vectorize, but there are definitely  
>>>>> vectorizable loops in Pd.
>>>> perhaps it would be a good start to reimplement newbytes(n)  
>>>> using memalign(16,n) instead of malloc(n).
>>> A few years ago i introduced aligned memory allocation in the pd- 
>>> devel branch.
>> Have you tried submitting a patch?  It would be at least useful in  
>> Pd-extended.  How big a difference did it make?
> I have a better idea. People interested in improvements can easily  
> make a diff from the devel branch.
> The aligned memory allocation is part of the SIMD codelets which  
> have been part of pd-devel for a long time.

It generally accepted procedure in the projects that I've seen that  
people guide their own code thru the procedures of submitting patches  
and getting them accepted.  I think that makes sense here too.

Its coming quite clear that devel/dd is fork since the devel/dd devs  
are resistant or unwilling to try to get code into pd-MAIN.  That's  
too bad, I think we will all be the worse for it, but its your choice  
to do so.  I think it would be helpful to make it clear that its a  
fork instead of continuing to skirt the issue.



If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

More information about the Pd-dev mailing list