I have been reading Game Engine Books since I was 14 (At that time I didn't understand a thing:P) Now quite some years later I wanted to start programming the Mathmatical Basis for my Game Engine. I've been thinking long about how to design this 'library'. (Which I mean as "Organized set of files") Every few years new SIMD instructionsets come out, and I wouldn't want them to go to waste. (Tell me if I am wrong about this.)
I wanted to at least have the following properties:
- Making it able to check if it has SIMD at runtime, and use SIMD if it has it and uses the normal C++ version if it doesn't. (Might have some call overhead, is this worth it?)
- Making it able to compile for SIMD or normal C++ if we already know the target at compile time. The calls can get inlined and made suitable for Cross-Optimisation because the compiler knows if SIMD or C++ is used.
EDIT - I want to make the sourcecode portable so it can run on other deviced then x86(-64) too
So I thought it would be a good solution to use function pointers which I would make static and initialize at the start of the program. And which the suited functions(For example multiplication of Matrix/Vector) will call.
What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages(Which outweights more?) of this design and is it even possible to create it with both properties as described above?
It's important to get the right granularity at which you make decision on which routine to call. If you do this at too low a level then function dispatch overhead becomes a problem, e.g. a small routine which just has a few instructions could become very inefficient if called via some kind of function pointer dispatch mechanism rather than say just being inlined. Ideally the architecture-specific routines should be processing a reasonable amount of data so that function dispatch cost is negligible, without being so large that you get significant code bloat due to compiling additional non-architecture-specific code for each supported architecture.