Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I recently noticed that
_m128 m = _mm_set_ps(0,1,2,3);
puts the 4 floats into reverse order when cast to a float array:
(float*) p = (float*)(&m);
// p[0] == 3
// p[1] == 2
// p[2] == 1
// p[3] == 0
The same happens with a union { _m128 m; float[4] a; } also.
Why do SSE operations use this ordering? It’s not a big deal but slightly confusing.
And a follow-up question:
When accessing elements in the array by index, should one access in the order 0..3 or the order 3..0 ?
It’s just a convention; they had to pick some order, and it really doesn’t matter what the order is as long as everyone follows it. Intel happens to like little-endianness.
As far as accessing by index goes… the best thing is to try to avoid doing it. Nothing kills vector performance like element-wise accesses. If you must, try set things up so that the indexing matches the hardware vector lanes; that’s what most vector programmers (in my experience) will expect.