I'm just really, really weary and dubious about these architecture tweaks
because they're so bleeping arbitrary. Looking at gcc manual around znver:
znver1
AMD Family 17h core based CPUs with x86-64 instruction set
support. (This supersets BMI, BMI2, F16C, FMA, FSGSBASE, AVX,
AVX2, ADCX, RDSEED, MWAITX, SHA, CLZERO, AES, PCL_MUL, CX16,
MOVBE, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4A, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, ABM,
XSAVEC, XSAVES, CLFLUSHOPT, POPCNT, and 64-bit instruction set
extensions.
znver2
AMD Family 17h core based CPUs with x86-64 instruction set
support. (This supersets BMI, BMI2, ,CLWB, F16C, FMA, FSGSBASE,
AVX, AVX2, ADCX, RDSEED, MWAITX, SHA, CLZERO, AES, PCL_MUL,
CX16, MOVBE, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4A, SSSE3, SSE4.1,
SSE4.2, ABM, XSAVEC, XSAVES, CLFLUSHOPT, POPCNT, and 64-bit
instruction set extensions.)
btver1
CPUs based on AMD Family 14h cores with x86-64 instruction set
support. (This supersets MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A,
CX16, ABM and 64-bit instruction set extensions.)
btver2
CPUs based on AMD Family 16h cores with x86-64 instruction set
support. This includes MOVBE, F16C, BMI, AVX, PCL_MUL, AES,
SSE4.2, SSE4.1, CX16, ABM, SSE4A, SSSE3, SSE3, SSE2, SSE, MMX
and 64-bit instruction set extensions.
Why do we need znver when we didn't need btver? Or the million other things
that are there - gcc 9.2.1 manual lists no less than 79 cpu types for the x86
family, we know about a dozen. Which is already more than we should, I would
say.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1035#issuecomment-588224522_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
