On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 03:36:03PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > It is useful to know which CPUs satisfy each x86-64 ABI > compatibility level, when dealing with guest OS that require > something newer than the baseline ABI. > > These ABI levels are defined in: > > https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/x86-64-ABI/ > > and supported by GCC, CLang, GLibC and more. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> [...] > diff --git a/docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv > b/docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..4565e6a535 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv > @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ > +Model,baseline,v2,v3,v4 > +486,,,, > +486-v1,,,, > +Broadwell,✅,✅,✅, > +Broadwell-IBRS,✅,✅,✅, > +Broadwell-noTSX,✅,✅,✅, > +Broadwell-noTSX-IBRS,✅,✅,✅, > +Broadwell-v1,✅,✅,✅, > +Broadwell-v2,✅,✅,✅, > +Broadwell-v3,✅,✅,✅, > +Broadwell-v4,✅,✅,✅,
Unversioned names like "Broadwell" are machine-type-dependent aliases. I don't think they should be present in the table. Models with suffixes like -IBRS, -noTSX, etc. are also aliases to specific versions. Maybe they could appear in the table for completeness, but I'm not sure. -- Eduardo
