On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen <al...@carewolf.com> wrote: > On Monday 26 January 2015, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen >> >> >> >> <al...@carewolf.com> wrote: >> >>> On Saturday 24 January 2015, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> >>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> > Hello! >> >>>> > >> >>>> >>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 01:28:47PM +0100, Allan Sandfeld Jensen > wrote: >> >>>> >>> > I recently wanted to use multiversioning for BMI2 specific >> >>>> >>> > extensions PDEP/PEXT, and noticed it wasn't there. So I wrote >> >>>> >>> > this patch to add it, and also added AES, F16C and BMI1 for >> >>>> >>> > completeness. >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> AES nor F16C doesn't make any sense IMHO for multiversioning, you >> >>>> >>> need special intrinsics for that anyway and when you use them, >> >>>> >>> the function will fail to compile without those features. >> >>>> >>> Multiversioning only makes sense for ISA features the compiler >> >>>> >>> uses for normal C/C++ code without any intrinsics. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Patch reduced to just adding BMI and BMI2 multiversioning: >> >>>> > +2014-12-29 Allan Sandfeld Jensen <sandf...@kde.org> >> >>>> > + >> >>>> > + * config/i386/i386.c (get_builtin_code_for_version): Add >> >>>> > + support for BMI and BMI2 multiversion functions. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > +2014-12-29 Allan Sandfeld Jensen <sandf...@kde.org> >> >>>> > + >> >>>> > + * gcc.target/i386/funcspec-5.c: Test new multiversion targets. >> >>>> > + * g++.dg/ext/mv17.C: Test BMI/BMI2 multiversion dispatcher. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > +2014-12-29 Allan Sandfeld Jensen <sandf...@kde.org> >> >>>> > + >> >>>> > + * config/i386/cpuinfo.c (enum processor_features): Add FEATURE_BMI >> >>>> > and + FEATURE_BMI2. >> >>>> > + (get_available_features): Detect FEATURE_BMI and FEATURE_BMI2. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > OK for mainline >> >>>> >> >>>> Allan, did you commit the patch to mainline? I don't see it in SVN >> >>>> logs. >> >>>> >> >>>> (If you don't have SVN commit access, please mention it in the patch >> >>>> submission, so someone will commit the patch for you). >> >>> >> >>> Sorry. I don't have SVN commit access. >> >> >> >> Committed with a bunch of fixes (e.g. missing fold_builtin_cpu part in >> >> gcc/config/i386/i386.c, and mv17.C test didn't compile at all due to >> >> missing parenthesis). >> > >> > ... and now with committed ChangeLog and patch. >> > >> > gcc/ChangeLog: >> > * config/i386/i386.c (get_builtin_code_for_version): Add >> > support for BMI and BMI2 multiversion functions. >> > (fold_builtin_cpu): Add F_BMI and F_BMI2. >> > >> > libgcc/ChangeLog: >> > * config/i386/cpuinfo.c (enum processor_features): Add FEATURE_BMI >> > and FEATURE_BMI2. >> > (get_available_features): Detect FEATURE_BMI and FEATURE_BMI2. >> > >> > testsuite/ChangeLog: >> > * gcc.target/i386/funcspec-5.c: Test new multiversion targets. >> > * g++.dg/ext/mv17.C: Test BMI/BMI2 multiversion dispatcher. >> >> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c >> index 9ec40cb..441911d 100644 >> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c >> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c >> @@ -34289,15 +34289,18 @@ get_builtin_code_for_version (tree decl, tree >> *predica te_list) >> P_PROC_SSE4_A, >> P_SSE4_1, >> P_SSE4_2, >> - P_PROC_SSE4_2, >> P_POPCNT, >> + P_PROC_SSE4_2, >> P_AVX, >> P_PROC_AVX, >> + P_BMI, >> + P_PROC_BMI, >> P_FMA4, >> P_XOP, >> P_PROC_XOP, >> P_FMA, >> P_PROC_FMA, >> + P_BMI2, >> P_AVX2, >> P_PROC_AVX2, >> P_AVX512F, >> >> This changed the priority of P_POPCNT and caused >> >> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/mv1.C -std=gnu++98 execution test >> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/mv1.C -std=gnu++11 execution test >> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/mv1.C -std=gnu++14 execution test >> >> on Nehalem and Westmere machines: >> >> mv1.exe: >> /export/gnu/import/git/sources/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/mv1.C:51: int >> main(): Assertion `val == 5' failed. >> >> since "val" is 6 now. > > Right. I am not sure why popcnt was prioritized below arch=corei7. The logic > is supposed to be that any target that includes an extension is prioritized
I don't understand your question. popcnt feature is separate from -march. Its priority has nothing to do with -march=corei7. > above that extension. I included the change in the order in i386.c, but not > the updated test. It is probably better to not change the order in i386.c, or > at least change that in a separate commit. -- H.J.
