maxas VS Halide

cuDNN is already very optimized but if you want to read on optimizing, here you go (Maxwell specifix) https://github.com/NervanaSystems/maxas/wiki/SGEMM, there is an accompanying paper or read Nvidia Cutlass.

As explained in https://github.com/NervanaSystems/maxas/wiki/SGEMM you need to do the same on GPUs.

If CPU/GPU execution speed is the goal while simultaneously code golfing the source size, https://halide-lang.org/ might have come in handy.

This is a task where Halide https://halide-lang.org/ could really shine! It disconnects logic from scheduling (unrolling, vectorizing, tiling, caching intermediates etc), so every step the author describes in the article is a tunable in halide. halide doesn't appear to have bindings for golang so calling C++ from go might be the only viable option.

Probably would have been much easier to do 15 times in https://halide-lang.org/

The idea behind Halide is that scheduling memory access patterns is critical to performance. But, access patterns being interwoven into arithmetic algorithms makes them difficult to modify separately.

So, in Halide you specify the arithmetic and the schedule separately so you can rapidly iterate on either.

It is not the sorting per-se which was improved here, but sorting (particularly short sequences) on modern CPUs with really the complexity being on the difficulty of predicting what will work quickly on these modern CPUs.

Doing an empirical algorithm search to find which algorithms fit well on modern CPUs/memory systems is pretty common, see e.g. FFTW, ATLAS, https://halide-lang.org/

Halide https://halide-lang.org/

It doesn’t apply in this case, but in general if you really want the best vectorization I would suggest using https://halide-lang.org instead of trying to coerce your compiler.

If we drop the "APL" requirement, wouldn't Halide fit your criteria for the third?