Put the more conservative one as the default... but can you write a
rule that says if /proc/cpuinfo exists then try to grep it for sse3?
That would be ideal.

I doubt that the extra optimizations really make _that_ much of a
difference though.  I mean... we're probably more dependent on how
Petsc was optimized than anything else.  What do they do in these
cases?

Derek

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 8:44 PM, John Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought we were doing good just using $target_cpu in our aclocal.m4
>  to detect x86_64... no idea how to check for specific instruction
>  sets.
>
>  -J
>
>
>
>  On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Roy Stogner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  >  We currently use icc -xP,
>  >
>  >  "Can generate SSE3, SSE2, and SSE instructions for Intel processors,
>  >  and it can optimize for  processors based on Intel(R) Core(TM)
>  >  microarchitecture and Intel NetBurst(R) microarchitecture, like
>  >  Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo processors, Pentium(R) 4 processors with SSE3,
>  >  and Intel(R) Xeon(R) pro- cessors with SSE3. This is the default on
>  >  Mac OS X systems using IA-32 architecture."
>  >
>  >  But what we apparently need on Opteron-based systems like Ranger is
>  >  icc -xW:
>  >
>  >  "Can generate SSE2 and SSE instructions, and it can optimize for
>  >  Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 processors and Intel(R) Xeon(R) processors
>  >  with SSE2. This is the default on Linux systems using Intel(R) 64
>  >  architecture.  This option is  the same as specifying
>  >  -march=pentium4."
>  >
>  >  I could just switch the optimizations in our aclocal.m4 file to use
>  >  the more conservative -xW.  It's better for us to always work and
>  >  sometimes use suboptimal compiler flags than to sometimes work and
>  >  sometimes use broken compiler flags.
>  >
>  >  Alternatively, it would be nice if we could autodetect what we're
>  >  running on at configure time.  I don't suppose there's any
>  >  cross-platform way to do "grep sse3 /proc/cpuinfo"?
>  >
>  >  Finally, it looks like icc 10 has the option to generate multiple code
>  >  paths; we could use "-xW -axP" to use SSE3 where it's supported and
>  >  fall back to SSE2-only otherwise.  This sounds like a way to bload
>  >  library and executable size, though.
>  >
>  >  Any preferences?
>  >  ---
>  >  Roy
>  >
>  >  -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >  This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
>  >  Register now and save $200. Hurry, offer ends at 11:59 p.m.,
>  >  Monday, April 7! Use priority code J8TLD2.
>  >  
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
>  >  _______________________________________________
>  >  Libmesh-devel mailing list
>  >  [email protected]
>  >  https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
>  >
>
>  -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
>  Register now and save $200. Hurry, offer ends at 11:59 p.m.,
>  Monday, April 7! Use priority code J8TLD2.
>  
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
>  _______________________________________________
>  Libmesh-devel mailing list
>  [email protected]
>  https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Register now and save $200. Hurry, offer ends at 11:59 p.m., 
Monday, April 7! Use priority code J8TLD2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
Libmesh-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel

Reply via email to