portable-simd VS unsafe-code-guidelines

Jubilee and Caleb Zulawski for their tireless work on the portable SIMD project. It will land, some day, and when it does it's going to be an amazing boon for the project.

The portable SIMD project implements an as_simd() function for slices. The basics are that you get 3 slices and the middle one is a SIMD slice. It allows for fast aligned loads of the data, which could matter if your algorithm is becoming memory bound; it is also a convenient and safe abstraction. In my case, I actually have 2 vectors (say, x and y). I can take them apart using as_simd() like so:

Rust has generics and monomorphization. You can write the algorithm once and compile for multiple targets. rust-lang/portable-simd

This Rust issue [0] was the best short summary of what an SIMD Shuffle is I could find:

„A "shuffle", in SIMD terms, takes a SIMD vector (or possibly two vectors) and a pattern of source lane indexes (usually as an immediate), and then produces a new SIMD vector where the output is the source lane values in the pattern given.“

[0] https://github.com/rust-lang/portable-simd/issues/11

Yet by default it generates code which is only compatible with Pentium4 or newer. In fact lots of serious issues relate to older CPUs and rustc developers plan is to declare them closed when they would be able to drop i686 support (all AMD CPUs which support SSE2 support x86-64, too while Intel situation is mess).

The standard API crate for portable simd is at https://github.com/rust-lang/portable-simd, but using this requires nightly, which I don't want to do. I'd like to use a crate for simd that works on both x86_64 and wasm in stable rust. wide looks fine for this purpose. Are there any potentially better choices?

See: https://github.com/rust-lang/portable-simd

As for portable SIMD, there's relatively recent activity (last commit 20 days ago) on this repository: https://github.com/rust-lang/portable-simd

Useful context on the Rust side is this issue [1]. It sounds like some of the author's concerns are addressed already.

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/4...

Is this captured by one of the known soundness conflicts? If not then should consider adding it to the list.

There are some competing proposals for different memory models. Stacked borrows is the current proposal, but there are more work in the approproate WG.

Thank you /u/RalfJung for bringing formal methods to Rust, both through models like Stacked Borrows, by developing miri, and by working on unsafe-code-guidelines which aims to specify exactly what is and isn't allowed in unsafe code (surprisingly, it's an open question as 2023!)

You could imagine some way to make this safe for example automatically convert &'short &'long mut T to &'short &'short T, but it's non-trivial to prove they are safe at all, not to mention ensuring this is correctly implemented in the compiler. If you're interested there's also a discussion on whether the opposite (& & T to & &mut T) is sound here.

Agreed! MIRI is so good, it still feels like magic to me. It also comforts me that the Rust team takes improving unsafe semantics seriously, with the past Unsafe Code Guidelines WG and today's operational semantics team (t-opsem).

I think there are some aspects of this rule that are still undecided. See for example:

- https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/8...

- https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2732

C is much better specified than unsafe Rust. Some things are just not worked out yet in Rust. This may sometimes even bite very experienced devs, such as this issue with Box's aliasing semantics, which tripped up the author of left-right.