I have been playing around with portable_simd on my regular avx512 capable laptop,
and noticed that the alignment constraints of the larger vector types seem to grow beyond the limitations imposed by the hardware (u64x64 require their full size, so 512 byte! alignment).
Is this behavior intended? (E.g. to be directly forward compatible with future even larger vector extensions?)
Since the underlying types leverage repr_simd this might be a issue for the compiler itself, but I wanted to check here first.
macro_rules! debug_simd_align {
(@inner $t:ty, $($N:literal)*) => {
$(
println!("{} {:?}", std::any::type_name::<Simd::<$t, $N>>(), std::alloc::Layout::new::<Simd::<$t, $N>>());
)*
};
($t:ty) => {
debug_simd_align!(@inner $t, 1 2 4 8 16 32 64)
};
}
#[test]
fn test_simd_alignment() {
debug_simd_align!(u8);
debug_simd_align!(u16);
debug_simd_align!(u32);
debug_simd_align!(u64);
debug_simd_align!(usize);
}
I have been playing around with
portable_simdon my regular avx512 capable laptop,and noticed that the alignment constraints of the larger vector types seem to grow beyond the limitations imposed by the hardware (u64x64 require their full size, so 512 byte! alignment).
Is this behavior intended? (E.g. to be directly forward compatible with future even larger vector extensions?)
Since the underlying types leverage
repr_simdthis might be a issue for the compiler itself, but I wanted to check here first.