Hi Uros and other reviewers, I'd like to split the work into 2 parts: 1) Basic processor enabling. 2) Processor type dynamic check.
Let's use a separate patch to implement the part 2.
The part 1 is implemented by attached patch.
Is it ok for trunk?
Wei
gcc/
* common/config/i386/i386-common.c (processor_names): Add cascadelake.
(processor_alias_table): Add cascadelake.
* config.gcc: Add -march=cascadelake.
* config/i386/i386-c.c (ix86_target_macros_internal): Handle cascadelake.
* config/i386/i386.c (Add m_CASCADELAKE): New.
(processor_cost_table): Add cascadelake.
(get_builtin_code_for_version): Handle cascadelake.
* config/i386/i386.h (TARGET_CASCADELAKE, PROCESSOR_CASCADELAKE): New.
(PTA_CASCADELAKE): Ditto.
* doc/invoke.texi: Add -march=cascadelake.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/i386/funcspec-56.inc: Handle new march.
Wei Xiao <[email protected]> 于2018年11月29日周四 下午4:32写道：
>
> Hi
>
> Distinguish based on stepping number is not recommended for some reasons:
> 1) Intel doesn't officially disclose stepping information in SDM.
> 2) Stepping can be changing in the future.
>
> We still prefer the conventional distinguish approach based on feature bits.
> I have refined the patch as attached according to all your suggestions.
>
> Wei
>
> gcc/
> * common/config/i386/i386-common.c (processor_names): Add cascadelake.
> (processor_alias_table): Add cascadelake.
> * config.gcc: Add -march=cascadelake.
> * config/i386/driver-i386.c
> (host_detect_local_cpu): Detect cascadelake.
> * config/i386/i386-c.c (ix86_target_macros_internal): Handle
> cascadelake.
> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_cost): Add m_CASCADELAKE.
> (processor_cost_table): Add cascadelake.
> (get_builtin_code_for_version): Handle cascadelake.
> (fold_builtin_cpu): Ditto.
> * config/i386/i386.h (TARGET_CASCADELAKE, PROCESSOR_CASCADELAKE): New.
> (PTA_CASCADELAKE): Ditto.
> * doc/extend.texi: Add cascadelake.
> * doc/invoke.texi: Add -march=cascadelake.
> gcc/testsuite/
> * g++.target/i386/mv16.C: Handle new march.
> * gcc.target/i386/builtin_target.c: Ditto.
> * gcc.target/i386/funcspec-56.inc: Ditto.
> libgcc/
> * config/i386/cpuinfo.c (get_intel_cpu): Handle cascadelake.
> * config/i386/cpuinfo.h: Add INTEL_COREI7_CASCADELAKE.
> Wei Xiao <[email protected]> 于2018年11月27日周二 下午6:40写道：
> >
> > Thanks for the helpful information!
> > But I'm still checking with hardware team about the
> > family/model/stepping numbers for Cascadelake which are not officially
> > disclosed by Intel (to my best knowledge).
> >
> > Wei
> > Martin Liška <[email protected]> 于2018年11月26日周一 下午10:00写道：
> > >
> > > On 11/26/18 12:18 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:03:53PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> > > >>> For Cascade Lake the model number is the same as Skylake Server,
> > > >>> it can only be distinguished based on the stepping (5 vs 4)
> > > >>
> > > >> Very interesting, probably the first time a distinguish is based on
> > > >> stepping number?
> > > >
> > > > Wouldn't it be better to distinguish it based on availability of VNNI,
> > > > like
> > > > we do for unknown family/model?
> > > >
> > > >>> Like gcc -mcpu=native needs to learn about this.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm attaching patch that does that. Note that it's completely untested
> > > >> as I don't have
> > > >> access to any of the new machines (Skylake server).
> > >
> > > Would be possible, the only ugly place would be in
> > > libgcc/config/i386/cpuinfo.c where we
> > > call:
> > >
> > > get_intel_cpu (family, model, stepping, brand_id);
> > > /* Find available features. */
> > > get_available_features (ecx, edx, max_level, &avx512_vnni);
> > >
> > > one would need a feature to distinguish CPU model. Do we really want that?
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Jakub
> > > >
> > >
cascadelake-v4.diff
Description: Binary data
