https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117016
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) ---
Wrt. working on a larger data set you might be interested in:
https://github.com/mattkretz/vir-simd?tab=readme-ov-file#simd-execution-policy-p0350
For the problem you seem to describe, I like to have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117016
--- Comment #4 from Pieter P ---
Thank you, I appreciate for the quick responses.
> The design goal of the fixed_size ABI was an ABI-stable "this is never going
> to break on ABI boundaries" type.
You're right, ABI stability is not something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117016
Matthias Kretz (Vir) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117016
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Not really. Considering operator new gets passed the alignment since c++14.
s/c++14/c++17/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117016
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
> Having different alignment requirements for large SIMD vectors makes
> allocating buffers that are reused with different vector lengths quite tricky.
Not really. Considering operator new gets passed the
