This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] A new meta intrinsic header file for current and future x86 instrinsics.



On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:55 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:


On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner@apple.com> wrote:
On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:04 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:

Hi H.J,


We have already responded that vendor specific header files are not a
proposal that is acceptable to AMD.
We agree with Uros and Richi's views that we should not have vendor
specific header files. We should instead have architecture extension
specific header files.



It is just a name, nothing more. You can call it <MyISAintrin.h> if you
want.

The X86 world has more than just Intel and AMD in it. Go by features, not
vendors.



We can have <x86intrin.h> which has


#include <immtrin.h>  // ISA extensions from Intel
#include <myISAintrin.h>  // ISA extensions from AMD
#include <yourISAintrin.h>  // ISA extensions from XYZ

Intel, AMD and XYZ can add new ISA extensions to
their header files. It doesn't stop FOOBAR from
creating a processor which implements ISAs
from <immtrin.h>, <myISAintrin.h> and <yourISAintrin.h>.

Your approach assumes there is value to having immtrin.h and myisaintrin.h. What value do you see there? What audience are you serving?


If there is no reason to have immtrin.h, there is no reason to proceed with this approach.

-Chris


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]