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: symbolic names for processor IDs

From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at gmail dot com>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 08:57:31 -0400
Subject: Re: symbolic names for processor IDs
References: <CAFULd4acGpExHhJ_LfCnb+upiFoNRsZ=o61DfHEcx6EvgWxucQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are some other cpuid vendor signatures than AMD and Intel, and
> probably there will be some more.

Sure, if there are still people using those they can easily add those.

> IMO, anybody using __get_cpuid_max
> call should define accepted signatures by itself.

According to that argument there should also be no bit_* definitions.
Of course everyone can define them.  It's easy enough but it's also
easy to make mistakes and to not document them.

References:
- Re: symbolic names for processor IDs
  - From: Uros Bizjak

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