On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
<carew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday 23 December 2013, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
>>
>> <carew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Monday 23 December 2013, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>> >> On Monday 23 December 2013, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:20:39AM +0100, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>> >> > > On Thursday 19 December 2013, Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh wrote:
>> >> > > > > Sorry, I must have been looking at an older version, but as I
>> >> > > > > said I already did enable it in the latest patch. (see
>> >> > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg01577.html )
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Sorry for causing another revision but we would like to stick with
>> >> > > > "btver1" and "btver2" rather than "BOBCAT" or "JAGUAR". Therefore
>> >> > > > the changes would be like
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I will need to make an updated patch to move the new ISAs to the end
>> >> > > of the list anyway. I will send it in a few days to give AMD or
>> >> > > Intel developers time to comment on the current version.
>> >> >
>> >> > I renamed Intel processor names. Please update your patch. Here is my
>> >> > patch to add more Intel processor support. You can add it to your
>> >> > patch.
>> >>
>> >> Updated patch attached. Rebased, fixed coding style, moved new ISA enums
>> >> to the end and applied H.J.Lu's patch.
>> >
>> > Fixed merging mistake that left haswell with SSE4_2 priority.
>> >
>> > `Allan
>>
>> + M_INTEL_COREI7_AVX,
>> + M_INTEL_CORE_AVX2,
>>
>> Do we need them? M_INTEL_COREI7_AVX is the same
>> M_INTEL_COREI7_SANDYBRIDGE and M_INTEL_CORE_AVX2
>> is the same as M_INTEL_COREI7_HASWELL.
>>
> M_INTEL_COREI7_AVX is the common model for both sandybridge and ivybridge.
> Matching PROCESSOR_SANDYBRIDGE, or march="corei7-avx". Similarly
> M_INTEL_CORE_AVX2 is the common model for haswell and broadwell, matching
> PROCESSOR_HASWELL or march="core-avx2".
If you use
{"corei7-avx", M_INTEL_COREI7_SANYBRIDGE},
{"core-avx2", M_INTEL_COREI7_HASWELL},
will it cause any problems? When there are both
__attribute__((target("corei7-avx")))
and
__attribute__((target("sandybridge")))
we should either issue an error or silently drop
__attribute__((target("corei7-avx")))
instead of generating to 2 identical copies of the same
function.
>> + M_INTEL_CORE_HASWELL
>>
>> Please change M_INTEL_CORE_HASWELL to M_INTEL_COREI7_HASWELL.
>>
> I used the name core_haswell to make its prefix match that of its model
> core_avx2 (as opposed to corei7_avx for instance).
We should remove all internal references to corei7-avx and
core-avx2 if possible.
>> + {"corei7-avx", M_INTEL_COREI7_AVX},
>> + {"core-avx2", M_INTEL_CORE_AVX2},
>>
>> Why do we need them?
>
> Without the existence of these entries, __attribute__((target("corei7-avx")))
> or __attribute__((target("core-avx2")) failed to compile because of how
> parameters to attributes were verified.
>
--
H.J.
