From c25c0e9780bda314d12bda6aed5caf10514caf7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 17:41:03 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] partial update --- simple_v_extension.mdwn | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/simple_v_extension.mdwn b/simple_v_extension.mdwn index e828523d2..4085d7b59 100644 --- a/simple_v_extension.mdwn +++ b/simple_v_extension.mdwn @@ -41,11 +41,12 @@ In David Patterson and Andrew Waterman's analysis of SIMD and Vector ISAs, the analysis comes out clearly in favour of (effectively) variable length SIMD. As SIMD is a fixed width, typically 4, 8 or in extreme cases 16 or 32 simultaneous operations, the setup, teardown and corner-cases of SIMD -are extremely burdensome except for applications that *specifically* require -match the *precise and exact* depth of the SIMD engine. +are extremely burdensome except for applications whose requirements +*specifically* match the *precise and exact* depth of the SIMD engine. Thus, SIMD, no matter what width is chosen, is never going to be acceptable -for general-purpose computation. +for general-purpose computation, and in the context of developing a +general-purpose ISA, is never going to satisfy 100 percent of implementors. That basically leaves "variable-length vector" as the clear *general-purpose* winner, at least in terms of greatly simplifying the instruction set, -- 2.30.2