[bitc-dev] Bitc and Simd

[Ben Kloosterman]

Yes from a language point of view it's not that hard  , the compiler back
end is  quite a bit harder though eg the IR . 

 

Is implicit conversions such a bad thing in general , ok I agree for C style
but C# allows them provided the implicit operator  never  throws an
exception or loses information . ( So short to int is valid but the reverse
is not)  it does keep a lot of ugly casts out of the code. 

 

Ben

 

 

From: bitc-dev-bounces at coyotos.org [mailto:bitc-dev-bounces at coyotos.org] On
Behalf Of Jonathan S. Shapiro
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 3:49 AM
To: Discussions about the BitC language
Subject: Re: [bitc-dev] Bitc and Simd

 

I'm going to hazard an uninformed guess on this: BitC already gives us
enough overloading capabilities to handle most of what we need. We'll need
to look at ternary operators like MUL-ADD in the mixfix handler at some
point, but that doesn't seem intrinsically hard. We'll also clearly need to
deal with explicit alignment and offsets.

What we will not introduce is implicit conversion. That way lies insanity.


shap

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3069 - Release Date: 08/14/10
02:34:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.coyotos.org/pipermail/bitc-dev/attachments/20100815/fc899fea/attachment.html