On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 08:49:09AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > gcc/c-family/
> > * c-common.h (omp_clause_mask): Move to wide_int_bitmask.h.
> >
> > gcc/
> > * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_option_override_internal): Change flags
> > type to
> > wide_int_bitmask.
> > *
;> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:47 AM
>> To: Koval, Julia
>> Cc: Richard Biener ; Uros Bizjak ;
>> GCC Patches ; Kirill Yukhin
>>
>> Subject: Re: [patch][x86] -march=icelake
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 08:35:38AM +, Koval, Julia wrote:
>> >
Koval, Julia
> Cc: Richard Biener ; Uros Bizjak ;
> GCC Patches ; Kirill Yukhin
>
> Subject: Re: [patch][x86] -march=icelake
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 08:35:38AM +, Koval, Julia wrote:
> > * c-common.h (omp_clause_mask): Move to wide_int_b
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 08:35:38AM +, Koval, Julia wrote:
> * c-common.h (omp_clause_mask): Move to wide_int_bitmask.h
Missing dot ad the end.
+ wide_int_bitmask PTA_3DNOW (HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << 0);
Can't all these be const wide_int_bitmask instead of just
wide_int_bitmask?
...
+
+ wi
nal Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:rguent...@suse.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:18 PM
> To: Koval, Julia
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek ; Uros Bizjak ; GCC
> Patches ; Kirill Yukhin
> Subject: RE: [patch][x86] -march=icelake
>
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018, Koval, Julia w
quot; in the name.
>
> Julia
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:06 PM
> > To: Uros Bizjak ; Richard Biener
> > Cc: Koval, Julia ; GCC Patches > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>; Kirill Yukhin
: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:06 PM
> To: Uros Bizjak ; Richard Biener
> Cc: Koval, Julia ; GCC Patches patc...@gcc.gnu.org>; Kirill Yukhin
> Subject: Re: [patch][x86] -march=icelake
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:00:26PM +0100, Uros
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:00:26PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Koval, Julia wrote:
> > Yes, you are right, any() is not required. Here is the patch.
>
> Please also attach ChangeLog.
>
> The patch is OK for x86 target, it needs global reviewer approval
> (Maybe J
gt; Julia
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 12:36 PM
>> To: Koval, Julia
>> Cc: Richard Biener ; Uros Bizjak
>> ; GCC Patches ; Kirill Yukhin
>>
>> Subject: Re: [patch][x86] -
ukhin
>
> Subject: Re: [patch][x86] -march=icelake
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:30:10AM +, Koval, Julia wrote:
> > Hi, I tried omp_clause_mask and it looks ok. But it lacks check if there
> > is any bit or none. With addition of it(as proposed or in some other way
&g
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:30:10AM +, Koval, Julia wrote:
> Hi, I tried omp_clause_mask and it looks ok. But it lacks check if there
> is any bit or none. With addition of it(as proposed or in some other way
> it should work. What do you think about this approach(patch attached)?
Well, I ce
lto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 2:50 PM
> To: Koval, Julia
> Cc: Richard Biener ; Uros Bizjak
> ; GCC Patches ; Kirill Yukhin
>
> Subject: Re: [patch][x86] -march=icelake
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:34:03PM +, Koval, Julia wrote:
> >
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:34:03PM +, Koval, Julia wrote:
> >> Maybe [] operator could be used instead of a dynamic handling here.
> I had another solution in mind, with enums, which then addresses elements
> using its index, please look the patch attached.
You can also have a look at the omp
'd say. Or are the pta_64bit and friends
bitsets themselves?
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Julia
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 12:56 PM
>> To: Uros Bizjak
>> Cc: Koval
; To: Uros Bizjak
> Cc: Koval, Julia ; GCC Patches patc...@gcc.gnu.org>; Kirill Yukhin
> Subject: Re: [patch][x86] -march=icelake
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Koval, Julia wrote:
> >> Hi, I tried to
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Koval, Julia wrote:
>> Hi, I tried to replace 2 flags variable with c++ bitset(in patch attached).
>> What do you think?
>
> Hm, I'm not a c++ person, but I wonder about overhead and performance
> impact of th
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Koval, Julia wrote:
> Hi, I tried to replace 2 flags variable with c++ bitset(in patch attached).
> What do you think?
Hm, I'm not a c++ person, but I wonder about overhead and performance
impact of this change. Maybe [] operator could be used instead of a
dynami
t; -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Uros Bizjak
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 5:30 PM
> To: Koval, Julia
> Cc: GCC Patches ; Kirill Yukhin
>
> Subject: Re: [patch][x86] -march=icelake
>
On 11/11/2017 05:04 PM, Koval, Julia wrote:
Hi, this patch adds new option -march=icelake.
[snip]
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index bc6e86f..891c283 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
@@ -25331,6 +25331,14 @@ RDRND, FMA, BMI, BMI2, F16C, RDSEED,
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Koval, Julia wrote:
> Hi, this patch adds new option -march=icelake. Isasets defined in:
> https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/c5/15/architecture-instruction-set-extensions-programming-reference.pdf
> I didn't add arch code to driver-i386.c, bec
Hi, this patch adds new option -march=icelake. Isasets defined in:
https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/c5/15/architecture-instruction-set-extensions-programming-reference.pdf
I didn't add arch code to driver-i386.c, because there is no code available in
SDM yet, only for cannon
21 matches
Mail list logo
