36 comments

Add a comment…

Sign in

prestine

Your email address

Check!

invalid email

(thinking…)

Reset

or sign in with

• 
• 

UserVoice password

Forgot password?

Create a password

Your name

I agree to the terms of service

Signed in as (Sign out)

Close

Close

Post comment Submitting...

• Jay Lemmon commented  ·  March 20, 2013 3:53 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I do a lot of linear algebra work in C#, and I can wrangle the JITer to give me near optimal x87 with loop unrolling and things like that. SIMD is the only reason I have left to do anything in C++. Please don't make me go back to it!

• sinand99 commented  ·  March 13, 2013 8:39 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  we NEED SIMD!! now!!!

• Tom Spilman commented  ·  February 12, 2013 11:15 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  There is another vote on the Connect site:

  https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/778895/add-builtin-simd-support-for-net

• Joshua A. Schaeffer commented  ·  February 4, 2013 9:15 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Just because the JITter won't optimize for the sake of startup speed, doesn't mean NGEN can't be tasked with the ability to hyper-optimize .NET modules with SIMD and who knows what else.

• Tom Spilman commented  ·  January 23, 2013 10:12 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  We need SIMD! It would go a long way towards leveling the playing field between C# and C++.

• codekaizen commented  ·  December 28, 2012 10:37 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  @DrPizza - do you have a link? I remember decompiling JVM jitted bytecode in 2007 and it had already been using the XMM registers then. I'm guessing they've improved it even more and I'd love details.

• jyoti commented  ·  December 24, 2012 11:07 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  code preview of custom feedback from

• Anonymous commented  ·  November 7, 2012 8:53 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  With the direction that the industry is taking ,this should be considered high priority IMO. NEON could ooze a lot of performance out of the low power ARM chips we are seeing now; I hope MS is serious about the whole The whole Fast and Fluid mantra they are pushing.

• DrPizza commented  ·  November 5, 2012 8:25 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  In August, HotSpot added SIMD autovectorization of Java bytecode. HotSpot already has profiling and recompilation of hot spots (hence the name...). The Java JIT machinery was always ahead of .NET's and is leaving it ever further behind.

• Andrew commented  ·  September 29, 2012 8:15 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I develop games in C# .NET as its far more productive then C++ for smaller teams. I plan doing so for Windows 8 Metro as well. Auto vectorization or something like Mono.Simd would be very useful.

• Igor Markovic commented  ·  September 19, 2012 7:54 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I'm creating performance sensitive application which use popcount extensively.
  I need to check if cpu supports sse 4.2 and use popcount directly (or use software implementation if not available).
  Will this feature be available and when?
  Is there any time estimate or should I use unmanaged c++ instead?

• Henrik Öjelund commented  ·  August 16, 2012 3:08 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  We develop 3d cad software and the lack of SIMD intrinsic types is one the major drawback of C# compared to C++.

• dev commented  ·  August 7, 2012 4:42 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  In response to Carol Eidt as a game developer, I mostly work with vector2, vector3, matrix 4x4 and quaternions. In these use cases, SIMD intrinsics are the most important by far. This is one area where c# falls short of c++.

• codekaizen commented  ·  August 2, 2012 1:32 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Is anyone pushing for this going to BUILD 2012?

• Anonymous commented  ·  July 16, 2012 3:09 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Automatic vectorization would be amazing.

• Anonymous commented  ·  June 2, 2012 2:57 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Another vote for SIMD. I would find that extremely useful, as I like C# for games.

• xoofx commented  ·  May 26, 2012 3:38 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Along a much more improved JIT or NGen tools to generate highly optimized code, this feature is absolutely crucial. Please make float4, float2...etc HLSL like intrinsics available in C#

• Richard Thorne commented  ·  May 25, 2012 5:34 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Thanks for the insight Carol :) I think for the third case maybe a new application configuration value for enabling/disabling "heavier" JIT optimisations may be appropriate, that way server apps and games can enable it but lighter weight applications can have it off by default and not see any change in boot time.

• Anonymous commented  ·  May 24, 2012 11:10 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  In additional SIMD support, C# could also use better support for x64 hardware capabilities. See
  http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studio/suggestions/2643778-support-int128-on-64-bit-platform

• Anonymous commented  ·  May 21, 2012 4:40 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  #2 seems to be the bridge between #1 (useful for specialized geometric math in 3D) and #3 (where the coder is unaware that his task involves vectors of arbitrary length). As #1 will be used by the math savvy and #3 by them and all others, I see no additional value in #2. However, I value any solution you choose.