Re: [wwwdocs] Document Runtime CPU detection builtins
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Sriraman Tallam wrote: Committed after making the changes. One small problem, I am not sure how to fix this: The hyper link I referenced is : http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/X86-Built_002din-Functions.html#X86-Built_002din-Functions whereas the committed changes.html is pointing to: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/X86-Built-in-Functions.html#X86-Built-in-Functions Please note that the _002din is missing. This makes the link broken, did I miss anything? I verified that I submitted the right link. Based on changes I just committed and applied on gcc.gnu.org, finally there won't be new files or anchors with _002d in their names, just - instead. The patch below, which I just committed, adjust the links. All simpler and nicer now. :-) Gerald Index: gcc-4.8/changes.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.8/changes.html,v retrieving revision 1.124 diff -u -3 -p -r1.124 changes.html --- gcc-4.8/changes.html26 Nov 2013 03:21:07 - 1.124 +++ gcc-4.8/changes.html2 Dec 2013 20:17:11 - @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ int i = A().f(); // error, f() requires added. For details, see the a href=http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/avr-gcc#Fixed-Point_Support; GCC wiki/a and the -a href=http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Fixed_002dPoint.html; +a href=http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Fixed-Point.html; user manual/a. The support is not complete. /li liA new print modifier code%r/code for register operands in inline @@ -584,7 +584,7 @@ int i = A().f(); // error, f() requires code__builtin_cpu_is(westmere)/code returns a positive integer if the run-time CPU is an Intel Core i7 Westmere processor. Please refer to the a - href=http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/X86-Built_002din-Functions.html#X86-Built_002din-Functions; + href=http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/X86-Built-in-Functions.html#X86-Built-in-Functions; user manual/a for the list of valid CPU names recognized./li liA built-in function code__builtin_cpu_supports/code has been added to detect if the run-time CPU supports a particular ISA feature. @@ -592,7 +592,7 @@ int i = A().f(); // error, f() requires one string literal argument, the ISA feature. For example, code__builtin_cpu_supports(ssse3)/code returns a positive integer if the run-time CPU supports SSSE3 instructions. Please refer to the a - href=http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/X86-Built_002din-Functions.html#X86-Built_002din-Functions; + href=http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/X86-Built-in-Functions.html#X86-Built-in-Functions; user manual/a for the list of valid ISA names recognized./li /ul pCaveat: If these built-in functions are called before any static
Re: [wwwdocs] Document Runtime CPU detection builtins
On 2012-08-20 22:41 , Sriraman Tallam wrote: Hi Gerald / Diego, I have made all the mentioned changes. I also shortened the description like Diego mentioned by removing all the strings but kept the caveats. I have not added a reference to the documentation because i do not know what link to reference. The builtins are completely documented in extend.texi. Referring to the user's manual is OK, I think. +pCaveat: If these built-in functions are called before any static +constructors are invoked, like during IFUNC initialization, then the CPU +detection initialization must be explicity run using this newly provided s/explicity/explicitly/ Other than that, it looks fine to me. Diego.
Re: [wwwdocs] Document Runtime CPU detection builtins
Committed after making the changes. One small problem, I am not sure how to fix this: The hyper link I referenced is : http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/X86-Built_002din-Functions.html#X86-Built_002din-Functions whereas the committed changes.html is pointing to: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/X86-Built-in-Functions.html#X86-Built-in-Functions Please note that the _002din is missing. This makes the link broken, did I miss anything? I verified that I submitted the right link. Thanks, -Sri. On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote: On 2012-08-20 22:41 , Sriraman Tallam wrote: Hi Gerald / Diego, I have made all the mentioned changes. I also shortened the description like Diego mentioned by removing all the strings but kept the caveats. I have not added a reference to the documentation because i do not know what link to reference. The builtins are completely documented in extend.texi. Referring to the user's manual is OK, I think. +pCaveat: If these built-in functions are called before any static +constructors are invoked, like during IFUNC initialization, then the CPU +detection initialization must be explicity run using this newly provided s/explicity/explicitly/ Other than that, it looks fine to me. Diego.
Re: [wwwdocs] Document Runtime CPU detection builtins
Ping. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote: +ger...@pfiefer.com On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote: Hi Gerald, Is this release note alright? Thanks, -Sri. On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote: Hi, I have added a release note for x86 builtins __builtin_cpu_is and __builtin_cpu_supports. They were checked in to trunk in rev. 186789. Is this ok to submit? Thanks, -Sri.
Re: [wwwdocs] Document Runtime CPU detection builtins
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote: Hi, I have added a release note for x86 builtins __builtin_cpu_is and __builtin_cpu_supports. They were checked in to trunk in rev. 186789. Is this ok to submit? I would not include such detailed documentation in changes.html. I assume that all this documentation, including caveats and limitations is documented in the manual itself? If that's the case, then simply mention the builtins, an overview description of about a paragraph and pointers to the user documentation for limitations and caveats. Diego.
Re: [wwwdocs] Document Runtime CPU detection builtins
Hi Sriraman,
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
I have added a release note for x86 builtins __builtin_cpu_is and
__builtin_cpu_supports. They were checked in to trunk in rev. 186789.
I had hoped one of the x86 maintainers would review this from his
perspective given that they have more background. For the lack of
that, let me give it a try.
Index: changes.html
===
+li New builtin functions to detect run-time CPU type and ISA:br
built-in, cf. http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html; here and
in the following.
No br here; ul should just do that.
+ul
+ liBuiltin code__builtin_cpu_is/code has been added to detect if
+ the run-time CPU is of a particular type. The builtin returns a postive
+ integer on a match and zero otherwise. The builtin accepts one string
+ literal argument, the CPU name. For example,
A built-in function...
positive
It accepts one string (to make this shorter)
+ code__builtin_cpu_is(westmere)/code returns a postive integer if
positive
+ the run-time CPU is an Intel Corei7 Westmere processor. The following
I don't work for Intel, but should there be a space before i7?
+ are the CPU names recognized by code__builtin_cpu_is:/code
How about making this The following are the CPU names recognized for
now, which avoids another reference to the name of the built-in and
makes it clear that this is subject to change.
+ liBuiltin code__builtin_cpu_supports/code has been added to detect
A built-in function...
+ returns a postive integer on a match and zero otherwise. The builtin
positive
+ following are the ISA features recognized by
+ code__builtin_cpu_supports:/code
Same is above?
+pCaveat: If the above builtins are called before any constructors are
+invoked, like during IFUNC initialization, then the CPU detection
+initialization must be explicity run using this newly provided
+builtin, code__builtin_cpu_init/code.
...using the new built-in function code__builtin_cpu_init/code.
What is a constructor in this context, by the way? Will this be clear
to all the users?
+code
+static void (*some_ifunc_resolver(void))(void)br
+{br
+nbspnbsp __builtin_cpu_init();br
+nbspnbsp if (__builtin_cpu_is(amdfam10h) ...br
+nbspnbsp if (__builtin_cpu_supports(popcnt) ...br
+}
+/code
How about using pre here? That avoids the br/s which will cause
problems with the web page validator, by the way.
Nice job for documenting this so well. Thanks for taking the time
and your patience!
The patch is fine modulo the changes I pointed out (though some of
them are more suggestions and you do not need to slavishly follow
those).
Gerald
Re: [wwwdocs] Document Runtime CPU detection builtins
Hi Gerald / Diego,
I have made all the mentioned changes. I also shortened the
description like Diego mentioned by removing all the strings but kept
the caveats. I have not added a reference to the documentation because
i do not know what link to reference. The builtins are completely
documented in extend.texi.
I have attached the patch. If there are no further comments I will
submit this tomorrow.
Thanks,
-Sri.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
Hi Sriraman,
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
I have added a release note for x86 builtins __builtin_cpu_is and
__builtin_cpu_supports. They were checked in to trunk in rev. 186789.
I had hoped one of the x86 maintainers would review this from his
perspective given that they have more background. For the lack of
that, let me give it a try.
Index: changes.html
===
+li New builtin functions to detect run-time CPU type and ISA:br
built-in, cf. http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html; here and
in the following.
No br here; ul should just do that.
+ul
+ liBuiltin code__builtin_cpu_is/code has been added to detect if
+ the run-time CPU is of a particular type. The builtin returns a postive
+ integer on a match and zero otherwise. The builtin accepts one string
+ literal argument, the CPU name. For example,
A built-in function...
positive
It accepts one string (to make this shorter)
+ code__builtin_cpu_is(westmere)/code returns a postive integer if
positive
+ the run-time CPU is an Intel Corei7 Westmere processor. The following
I don't work for Intel, but should there be a space before i7?
+ are the CPU names recognized by code__builtin_cpu_is:/code
How about making this The following are the CPU names recognized for
now, which avoids another reference to the name of the built-in and
makes it clear that this is subject to change.
+ liBuiltin code__builtin_cpu_supports/code has been added to
detect
A built-in function...
+ returns a postive integer on a match and zero otherwise. The builtin
positive
+ following are the ISA features recognized by
+ code__builtin_cpu_supports:/code
Same is above?
+pCaveat: If the above builtins are called before any constructors are
+invoked, like during IFUNC initialization, then the CPU detection
+initialization must be explicity run using this newly provided
+builtin, code__builtin_cpu_init/code.
...using the new built-in function code__builtin_cpu_init/code.
What is a constructor in this context, by the way? Will this be clear
to all the users?
+code
+static void (*some_ifunc_resolver(void))(void)br
+{br
+nbspnbsp __builtin_cpu_init();br
+nbspnbsp if (__builtin_cpu_is(amdfam10h) ...br
+nbspnbsp if (__builtin_cpu_supports(popcnt) ...br
+}
+/code
How about using pre here? That avoids the br/s which will cause
problems with the web page validator, by the way.
Nice job for documenting this so well. Thanks for taking the time
and your patience!
The patch is fine modulo the changes I pointed out (though some of
them are more suggestions and you do not need to slavishly follow
those).
Gerald
Index: changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.8/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -r1.10 changes.html
--- changes.html10 Aug 2012 16:25:46 - 1.10
+++ changes.html21 Aug 2012 02:38:40 -
@@ -92,6 +92,38 @@
wrong results. You must build all
modules with code-mpreferred-stack-boundary=3/code, including any
libraries. This includes the system libraries and startup modules./li
+li New built-in functions to detect run-time CPU type and ISA:
+ul
+ liA built-in function code__builtin_cpu_is/code has been added to
+ detect if the run-time CPU is of a particular type. It returns a
+ positive integer on a match and zero otherwise. It accepts one string
+ literal argument, the CPU name. For example,
+ code__builtin_cpu_is(westmere)/code returns a positive integer if
+ the run-time CPU is an Intel Core i7 Westmere processor. Please refer
+ to the documentation for the list of valid CPU names recognized./li
+ liA built-in function code__builtin_cpu_supports/code has been
+ added to detect if the run-time CPU supports a particular ISA feature.
+ It returns a positive integer on a match and zero otherwise. It accepts
+ one string literal argument, the ISA feature. For example,
+ code__builtin_cpu_supports(ssse3)/code returns a positive integer
+ if the run-time CPU supports SSSE3 instructions. Please refer to the
+ documentation for the list of valid ISA names recognized./li
+/ul
+pCaveat: If these built-in
Re: [wwwdocs] Document Runtime CPU detection builtins
Hi Gerald, Is this release note alright? Thanks, -Sri. On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote: Hi, I have added a release note for x86 builtins __builtin_cpu_is and __builtin_cpu_supports. They were checked in to trunk in rev. 186789. Is this ok to submit? Thanks, -Sri.
Re: [wwwdocs] Document Runtime CPU detection builtins
+ger...@pfiefer.com On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote: Hi Gerald, Is this release note alright? Thanks, -Sri. On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote: Hi, I have added a release note for x86 builtins __builtin_cpu_is and __builtin_cpu_supports. They were checked in to trunk in rev. 186789. Is this ok to submit? Thanks, -Sri.
[wwwdocs] Document Runtime CPU detection builtins
Hi,
I have added a release note for x86 builtins __builtin_cpu_is and
__builtin_cpu_supports. They were checked in to trunk in rev. 186789.
Is this ok to submit?
Thanks,
-Sri.
Index: changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.8/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -u -p -r1.10 changes.html
--- changes.html10 Aug 2012 16:25:46 - 1.10
+++ changes.html11 Aug 2012 02:14:13 -
@@ -92,6 +92,69 @@ by this change./p
wrong results. You must build all
modules with code-mpreferred-stack-boundary=3/code, including any
libraries. This includes the system libraries and startup modules./li
+li New builtin functions to detect run-time CPU type and ISA:br
+ul
+ liBuiltin code__builtin_cpu_is/code has been added to detect if
+ the run-time CPU is of a particular type. The builtin returns a postive
+ integer on a match and zero otherwise. The builtin accepts one string
+ literal argument, the CPU name. For example,
+ code__builtin_cpu_is(westmere)/code returns a postive integer if
+ the run-time CPU is an Intel Corei7 Westmere processor. The following
+ are the CPU names recognized by code__builtin_cpu_is:/code
+ ul
+liamd/li
+liintel/li
+liatom/li
+licore2/li
+licorei7/li
+linehalem/li
+liwestmere/li
+lisandybridge/li
+liamdfam10h/li
+libarcelona/li
+lishanghai/li
+liistanbul/li
+libdver1/li
+libdver2/li
+libtver2/li
+ /ul/li
+ liBuiltin code__builtin_cpu_supports/code has been added to detect
+ if the run-time CPU supports a particular ISA feature. The builtin
+ returns a postive integer on a match and zero otherwise. The builtin
+ accepts one string literal argument, the ISA feature.
+ For example, code__builtin_cpu_supports(ssse3)/code returns a
+ positive integer if the run-time CPU supports SSSE3 instructions. The
+ following are the ISA features recognized by
+ code__builtin_cpu_supports:/code
+ ul
+licmov/li
+limmx/li
+lipopcnt/li
+lisse/li
+lisse2/li
+lisse3/li
+lissse3/li
+lisse4.1/li
+lisse4.2/li
+liavx/li
+liavx2/li
+ /ul/li
+/ul
+pCaveat: If the above builtins are called before any constructors are
+invoked, like during IFUNC initialization, then the CPU detection
+initialization must be explicity run using this newly provided
+builtin, code__builtin_cpu_init/code. The initialization needs to
+be done only once. For example, this is how the invocation would look
+like inside an IFUNC initializer:/p
+code
+static void (*some_ifunc_resolver(void))(void)br
+{br
+nbspnbsp __builtin_cpu_init();br
+nbspnbsp if (__builtin_cpu_is(amdfam10h) ...br
+nbspnbsp if (__builtin_cpu_supports(popcnt) ...br
+}
+/code
+/li
/ul
h3 id=mipsMIPS/h3
