Hi Uros, 在 2026/6/16 16:52, Kewen Lin 写道: > Hi Uros, > > 在 2026/6/16 15:40, Uros Bizjak 写道: >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 4:49 AM Kewen Lin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Authored-by: Xin Liu <[email protected]> >>> >>> Add c86-4g-m8 as a new HYGON Family 18h model 8 processor. It >>> inherits the c86-4g-m7 ISA set and most tuning decisions, including >>> the same processor costs and scheduling model baseline. >>> >>> The patch wires c86-4g-m8 into the common x86 processor tables, >>> driver CPU detection, target macros, --with-arch/--with-cpu handling, >>> builtin CPU detection and documentation. It also extends the c86-4g >>> tuning masks that already special-case c86-4g-m7 to cover c86-4g-m8. >>> >>> For scheduling, rename the shared scheduling description file from >>> gcc/config/i386/c86-4g-m7.md to gcc/config/i386/c86-4g-m7m8.md and >>> reuse the c86-4g-m7 scheduling reservations for c86-4g-m8 where the >>> latency and resource usage are the same. Add separate c86-4g-m8 >>> reservations for the few operations with different latency. This patch >>> does not affect genautomata build time. >>> >>> Bootstrapped and regtested on a hygon c86-4g-m7 machine, as well as >>> a cfarm x86-64 machine. >>> >>> Is it ok for trunk? Also ok to backport to gcc-16/gcc-15 after burn-in >>> time? >> >> OK with some minor inconsistencies resolved (see inline), also OK for >> backports after some time in mainline. >> >> Thanks, >> Uros. >> >>> [snip ....]>>> diff --git a/gcc/common/config/i386/cpuinfo.h b/gcc/common/config/i386/cpuinfo.h >>> index 62e9210b067..f59090c8cde 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/common/config/i386/cpuinfo.h >>> +++ b/gcc/common/config/i386/cpuinfo.h >>> @@ -383,6 +383,12 @@ get_hygon_cpu (struct __processor_model *cpu_model, >>> CHECK___builtin_cpu_is ("c86-4g-m7"); >>> cpu_model->__cpu_subtype = HYGONFAM18H_C86_4G_M7; >>> } >>> + else if (model == 0x8) >> >> This condition is inconsistent with the condition in driver-i386.cc, where >> >> else if (model >= 8) // open-ended >> processor = PROCESSOR_C86_4G_M8; >> >> I think this should be (model >= 0x8) so a hypothetical model 9 would >> get m8 tuning. > > As the else if hunk has a CHECK for exact m8, it was intentional to keep > the checking for "== 8" only. Does it sound reasonable? >
With the above explanation, do you still prefer to keep the consistency with driver-i386.cc, or agree it's fine to leave them incosistent? BR, Kewen
