this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
49 points (98.0% liked)
Programming
17450 readers
99 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
@keenkoon I wonder if it would make sense to store a regular compiled code and the extensions into one binary. And only load the extensions if the binary is executed on such an architecture, otherwise be compatible to older architecture.
This is why .NET code compiles to platform-independent binaries that get JIT translated to machine code and optimized for the target CPU. Developers don't need to do anything (the applications don't even need to be re-compiled), they will just get conditionally optimized when appropriate.
For an extension like this - unlike most prior extensions - you're best off with essentially an entirely separately compiled copy of the program/library. So
IFUNCis a poor fit, even with peer optimization.This is the only way really to move forward with ISA extensions.
Though, I think for this update we don't need to be too concerned. Since it changes the code in such an extensive way, compiler writers will be strongly incentivised to produce this duplicate path themselves. Instead of letting the burden of dispatching fall on the programmer like with AVX and friends