On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
> <carew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi again
>> On Wednesday 11 December 2013, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> > PR gcc/59422
>>> >
>>> > This patch extends the supported targets for function multi versiong to
>>> > also include Haswell, Silvermont, and the most recent AMD models. It
>>> > also prioritizes AVX2 versions over AMD specific pre-AVX2 versions.
>>>
>>> Please add a ChangeLog entry and attach the complete patch. Please
>>> also state how you tested the patch, as outlined in the instructions
>>> [1].
>>>
>>> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
>>>
>> Updated patch for better CPU model detection and added ChangeLog.
>>
>> The patch has been tested with the attached test.cpp. Verified that it
>> doesn't
>> build before the patch, and that it builds after, and verified it selects
>> correct versions at runtime based on either CPU model or supported ISA
>> (tested
>> on 3 machines: SandyBridge, IvyBridge and Phenom II).
>>
>> Btw, I couldn't find anything that corresponds to gcc's btver2 arch. Is that
>> an old term for what has become the Jaguar architecture?
>
> Thanks for the patch!
>
> However, you should not change the existing order of enums in
> cpuinfo.c (enum processor_vendor, enum processor_types, enum
> processor_subtypes, enum processor_features), but new entries should
> be added at the end (before *_MAX entry, if exists) of the enum. The
> enums (enum processor_features and enum processor_model) in
> config/i386/i386.c should mirror these changes. Please see [1].
>
> Probably, we should document this in the source...
>
> - {"sandybridge", M_INTEL_COREI7_SANDYBRIDGE},
> + {"corei7-avx", M_INTEL_COREI7_SANDYBRIDGE},
>
> Huh... Thanks for catching this. -march=sandybridge is not recognized...
- {"sandybridge", M_INTEL_COREI7_SANDYBRIDGE},
+ {"corei7-avx", M_INTEL_COREI7_SANDYBRIDGE},
+ {"core-avx-i", M_INTEL_COREI7_IVYBRIDGE},
+ {"core-avx2", M_INTEL_COREI7_HASWELL},
Ah, no. These names are not intended to be used in -march. We can
follow the tradition and use sandybridge, ivybridge and haswell here.
+ {"btver1", M_AMDFAM14H_BTVER1},
+ {"btver2", M_AMDFAM14H_BTVER2},
{"amdfam15h", M_AMDFAM15H},
{"bdver1", M_AMDFAM15H_BDVER1},
{"bdver2", M_AMDFAM15H_BDVER2},
Maybe AMD wants bobcat, piledriver and steamroller here instead of
btverX / bdverX?
Uros.
