Subject: Re: [boost] [simd] Hardware support
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-08 13:21:01
On 8 April 2017 at 13:21, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 04/08/17 14:06, Mathias Gaunard via Boost wrote:
>
>> On 8 April 2017 at 11:14, Bjorn Reese via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Boost.SIMD only supports x86.
>>>
>>> Are there plans for ARM NEON and/or MIPS SIMD?
>>>
>>
>> Other platforms are supported in the proprietary version of the library.
>> https://developer.numscale.com/bsimd/documentation/v1.17.3.0/
>>
>
> Will those be eventually included in Boost.SIMD, if it's accepted into
> Boost?
>
Being no longer affiliated with NumScale, the company behind this library,
I cannot say.
The original plan was to keep support for unusual and/or recent
architectures proprietary, while the open-source version would get backends
once the underlying technology becomes mainstream enough.
In practice I would not expect much; Boost.SIMD was initially developed by
a French university but is now handled by a company whose leanings towards
open-source might be less open.
This is an important point, IMO, and it should be clarified before review.
> If there are no plans to improve Boost.SIMD in order not to harm the
> commercial version then that makes Boost.SIMD significantly less
> attractive. Personally, I would vote for rejection in this case.
>
I personally have severe concerns about all aspects of intellectual
property surrounding that library and the people behind it.
For example, when I did a talk about Boost.SIMD at a conference using
nothing but open-source material, my employer received a cease-and-desist
letter and was asked to destroy all material related to Boost.SIMD as
NumScale claimed it was their property. My employer complied to be on the
safe side.
I believe that during the review we should definitely take into account how
the existence of the two versions of the software can be harmful to users.