Hello Jakub, On 22 Dec 12:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 11:41:27AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > Ok for trunk? > > > > OK. > > On top of this patch and the reason why we needed to move avx512vnni > from flags2 to flags instead of just: > case OPT_mavx512vnni: > if (value) > { > opts->x_ix86_isa_flags2 |= OPTION_MASK_ISA_AVX512VNNI_SET; > opts->x_ix86_isa_flags2_explicit |= OPTION_MASK_ISA_AVX512VNNI_SET; > - opts->x_ix86_isa_flags2 |= OPTION_MASK_ISA_AVX512F_SET; > - opts->x_ix86_isa_flags2_explicit |= OPTION_MASK_ISA_AVX512F_SET; > + opts->x_ix86_isa_flags |= OPTION_MASK_ISA_AVX512F_SET; > + opts->x_ix86_isa_flags_explicit |= OPTION_MASK_ISA_AVX512F_SET; > } > > the following patch does: > 1) adds a testcase (-2.c) where trunk without your patch ICEs, because > -mno-avx -mavx512vnni didn't enable -mavx512f when it should > 2) as that is now enabled, there is no need for the avx512vnniintrin.h > header to work-around that bug > 3) adds " | OPTION_MASK_ISA_AVX512VL" to builtins that need both avx512vnni > and avx512vl > 4) adds a testcase (-3.c) that ICEs without the 3) change, where we allow > the builtin, but ICE because the underlying insn isn't available > > Will bootstrap/regtest this on x86_64-linux and i686-linux soon, ok for > trunk if it passes bootstrap/regtest? Patch is OK if no issues.
-- Thanks, K