2D or not 2D (in the C++ Standard) – that is the question

Re:2D or not 2D (in the C++ Standard) – that is the question by phkahler on Monday June 11, 2018 @11:12AM (#17284919)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I want these vectors as standard types. First class data types, not part of a library or typedef. The example given in the parent comment is spot on with typical use.

I like that GCC defined their own way to declare these that is independent of x86, ARM, and Altivec intrinsics so your code is portable (so long as you use GCC). Geometrically relevant vectors are common enough to be native types, let's get there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:2D or not 2D (in the C++ Standard) – that is the question by exDM69 on Monday June 11, 2018 @12:45PM (#17285940)

> so your code is portable (so long as you use GCC)

Or Clang!

There are only minute differences between vector extensions in GCC vs. Clang. Little things like __builtin_shuffle vs. __builtin_shufflevector.

[ Parent | on HN ]