Re: [boost] [simd] Hardware support

On 04/08/17 16:21, Mathias Gaunard via Boost wrote:

On 8 April 2017 at 13:21, Andrey Semashev wrote:

...

On 04/08/17 14:06, Mathias Gaunard via Boost wrote:

...

On 8 April 2017 at 11:14, Bjorn Reese via Boost 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.

That is sad to hear. In the case that the code is not released, are you or other authors allowed (legally), able and willing to implement those backends in the opensource Boost.SIMD? By "implement" I don't mean reproducing the closed-source code but implementing the backends as your library design requires. If not you yourself, would you be willing and able to accept patches that implement that functionality, if someone else takes on the task?

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.

If the licensing situation is indeed unclear, it probably makes sense to put the review on hold and clarify this matter with NumScale (or whoever claims rights on the library). I think the last thing anyone needs is being pulled into court. Until the licensing issue is clear, I don't think the review, let alone acceptance, should happen. (Sorry, if that sounds disappointing or harsh, but I think that is ultimately for the better for you, Boost and Boost users.)