---On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
> <carew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> > I guess since they represent the exact same effective ISA, they would
>>> > have equal priority, so that it would likely chose whatever comes last.
>>>
>>> I have no strong opinion on this. But this is a user visible compiler
>>> behavior change. We should issue a warning/note here.
>>
>> Yes, or revert that part of the patch. It should have been a separate patch
>> anyway.
>
> Agreed.
>
> HJ, can you please revert this part? The patch from PR is OK.
>
I checked in this patch. I agree we should improve get_builtin_code_for_version
to better handle overlapping ISAs. Let's open a bug report to track it.
Thanks.
--
H.J.
---
Index: ChangeLog
===================================================================
--- ChangeLog (revision 220130)
+++ ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2015-01-26 H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com>
+
+ PR target/64806
+ * config/i386/i386 (feature_priority): Revert the last P_POPCNT
+ order change.
+
2015-01-26 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com>
PR target/64795
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===================================================================
--- config/i386/i386.c (revision 220130)
+++ config/i386/i386.c (working copy)
@@ -34289,8 +34289,8 @@ get_builtin_code_for_version (tree decl,
P_PROC_SSE4_A,
P_SSE4_1,
P_SSE4_2,
- P_POPCNT,
P_PROC_SSE4_2,
+ P_POPCNT,
P_AVX,
P_PROC_AVX,
P_BMI,
