I knew a guy who worked at MS when they were developing the Barney doll. He signed up to beta/play-test the doll since he had a son in the target age range.
He left work on Friday with the new Barney doll.
When he came into work on the following Monday, he told his co-workers, "Looks like I'm going to HAVE to get a Barney doll for my son when they're released."
The power of Barney...
He also mentioned that when all the Actimates dolls and other consumer-related products were released, the internal-only Microsoft store looked like a techie-version of FAO Schwarz instead of a Microsoft-leaning Egghead software store.
The bean counters at MS killed a lot of product ideas when they came up with the high revenue bar for any possible new products - as if anyone could predict that stuff accurately.
The code in question has to process a string of variable length.
But the compiler/CPU can process bytes one at a time or much faster in groups. The code is trying to process as much as possible in groups of 128.
But since the caller can pass in a string which is not a mulitple of 128 chars, the first for-loop (& 127) will figure out how much of the string to process such that the remaining string length is a multiple of 128.
The second for-loop (>> 7) calculates divides by 128 (>> 7) to find out how many multiples of 128 there are to process. The inner for-loop processes 128 chars looking for 's' chars.
Now the for-loop within a for-loop doesn't look any faster than the plain single for-loop, but I'd assume that the heuristics of certain compilers can intuit that it can generate code to operate on multiple chars at the same time (SIMD instructions), since the result of one operation are independent of others.
On a compiler that cannot generate SIMD code, the code won't be much faster, if at all, than the naive straightforward manner.
If this code only runs on one compiler version/CPU arch, then ASSUMING the compiler will do the RIGHT THING and auto-vectorize the code is okay.
But if your code will be cross-platform/run on different OSes/CPU arch's, then a SWAR version may be more consistently performant - no need to guess if the compiler's optimization heuristics decided to go with the general purpose CPU registers or faster SIMD registers.
Downside is that the devs are exposed to the gnarly optimized code.
I assume the M1's SIMD registers are wider/more numerous than just the couple of size_t registers used for the loading/masking/accumulating inner loop in your run_swtches().
You can speedup the code by unrolling your inner loop a few times (try 4x or 8x) - it does mean that your overflow prevention limit is lowered (to a multiple of the unrolled grouping number) and run a few more times. But the speedup offsets the increased bookkeeping.
A version I played with showed increased speed by saving the in-progress accumulation in an array and then doing the final accumulation after the main loop is done. But that may be due to the CPU arch/compiler I'm using.
If I unroll the 64-bit SWAR version by 8x instead of 4x, the runtime is reduced by another 10% over the 4x-unrolled SWAR version. Diminishing returns...
Almost the same as my SWAR version - which is what you're doing.
But aren't you reading off the end of the buffer in your memcpy(&w...)? Say with an empty input string whose start address is aligned to sizeof(size_t) bytes?
I just passed in the string length since the caller had that info, otherwise you'd scan the whole string again looking for the zero terminator.
My SWAR version almost does what your vectorization algorithm description does - just that the SWAR-code looks rather gnarly because the compiler isn't auto-generating the vector code for you, it's hand-coded in C by me and I'm limited to 64 bits at a time.
Looking at the nutritional info for Soylent and Vite Ramen shows that they also contain Vitamin D - at the same DRV percentages.
If you're getting 105% of your magnesium from these items, then you're also getting 105% of your Vitamin D before taking any additional Vitamin D supplements/sun exposure.
Adding the 5000IU of Vitamin D3 would be increasing your intake to 5840IU (730% of DRV) - assuming you didn't ingest anything else fortified with Vitamin D.
If you are missing, then authorities usually like to have a recent photo of you to aid in the search.
I don't see an explicit reference to "recent image of me" in your "First step" list of data - photos in legal docs/credentials may not accurately represent your current physical appearance.
Would line up well with Troy Hunt's mention of "It was a change in business model that not only made the deal infeasible from their perspective, but also from mine; some of the most important criteria for the possible suitor were simply no longer there"
But then I saw the date for the pcmag article above (Aug 2019) and I'm not sure now. Seems Symantec's divestiture is too early for this broken deal. Or would it take several months after the sale? I found an article from 2019 Nov 4 about Broadcom closing the Symantec purchase - https://www.crn.com/news/security/done-deal-10-7-billion-bro...
Not when you understand the economics/operation of 1980s desktop software.
Multitasking OSes? Nope - not in the early-mid 1980s.
You want to use another app? Save your work, quit your current app and launch the new app.
Cooperative multitasking eventually arrived, but if you didn't have enough RAM, it would be painful to switch amongst multiple apps.
Then there's the cost of the apps. You want a word processor? ~$250. Spreadsheet? Another ~$250. Presentation app? guess what? Another ~$250.
Or you can buy one of these new-fangled integrated apps that include word processor, spreadsheet, graphics, database and some other stuff. These integrated apps were jack-of-all-trades going for the 80% functionality that people needed. All for the price of one of the dedicated apps.
AppleWorks, MS Works, Ashton-Tate Framework filled a need at the low end.
There were always going to be users who didn't want/need the full functionality of a typical dedicated word processor/spreadsheet or didn't want to pay for features they didn't need/use.
Once Excel was fleshed out and MS bought Powerpoint, the Office suite of apps was born, priced at less than the total cost of the 3 individual apps.
The standalone desktop apps were living on borrowed time.
He left work on Friday with the new Barney doll.
When he came into work on the following Monday, he told his co-workers, "Looks like I'm going to HAVE to get a Barney doll for my son when they're released."
The power of Barney...
He also mentioned that when all the Actimates dolls and other consumer-related products were released, the internal-only Microsoft store looked like a techie-version of FAO Schwarz instead of a Microsoft-leaning Egghead software store.
The bean counters at MS killed a lot of product ideas when they came up with the high revenue bar for any possible new products - as if anyone could predict that stuff accurately.