This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Add -march=bdw support
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Ilya Tocar <tocarip dot intel at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Kirill Yukhin <kirill dot yukhin at gmail dot com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:14:40 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add -march=bdw support
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131219131107 dot GA82499 at msticlxl7 dot ims dot intel dot com> <20131219131835 dot GU892 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOpWoqLE3uJPk5_ywUg18BWyEHiLUvw8-vQ66cYunmMoDw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131219153514 dot GB82499 at msticlxl7 dot ims dot intel dot com> <CAFULd4Zr_cjNiXxfYtEE6YP4R8VzgWLS3XS1UN9DQQrVTGG8YA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131219164556 dot GX892 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOqOEtbNhGi_x8g0Q6ktGaknHR26vz+HrLcHMMJ-7WAhEA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFULd4aoaoQVHmLYPkHSYTQ57WwWwPNSoCsueKsG3QebMOfLjw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOrjxgeY0P7gvqV4FbhF7KRbo5fRPpSq8XwfFvKigao-jw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFULd4Y2BWvNhJmXyrqY1vXd++3dtHGZMxkieikiqsehqr6ZSw at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 06:02:48PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> IIRC, Intel was against using project names, and this "recommendation"
> was lifted some time ago. So if you think that these names are of some
> benefits to users, I'm all for longer, more descriptive names that are
> easy to remember.
BTW, I wonder if we add a bunch of new names to the table it isn't a right
time to also introduce macros for some common PTA_* flag combinations,
because otherwise it will become hardly maintainable.
So say have PTA_COREI7_BASE defined to the current corei7 PTA_* flags,
PTA_COREI7_AVX_BASE defined to PTA_COREI7_BASE | flags that corei7-avx
and all newer core* CPUs have, etc. Perhaps not for every single chip
(the pre-core2 ones certainly don't need that, they have only a few) and
perhaps say for every tock and tick, which usually has fewer new features,
would just or in stuff to that. Guess PTA_BDVER1_BASE and PTA_BTVER1_BASE
would be useful too.
Jakub