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: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat 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 18:02:48 +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>
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:55 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> Just say Intel Broadwell CPU.
>>>>> > Done. Other options report instruction sets, so i left them.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > OK for trunk?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 2013-12-19 Tocar Ilya <ilya.tocar@intel.com>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > * config.gcc: Support march=broadwell.
>>>>> > * config/i386/driver-i386.c (host_detect_local_cpu): Detect Broadwell.
>>>>> > * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_option_override_internal): Add broadwell.
>>>>> > * doc/invoke.texi: Document march=broadwell.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK for mainline.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we should add sandybridge, ivybridge and haswell aliases for
>>>
>>> Do we want to support Nehelam and Westmere?
>>
>> We already do in const arch_names_table[], so let's add them to
>> processor alias table as well.
>
> Atom is also too vague. Bonnell:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnell_%28microarchitecture%29
>
> is better.
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.
>>>> corei7-avx, core-avx-i, core-avx2? I mean, it is a nightmare to remember
>>>> which one has the i7 in and which doesn't even for me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do we want the full names or just abbreviations?
>>
>> Full names please.
>>
>
> Should we add Silvermont and make slm an alias?
Yes. Can you also look at Allan's pending patch and synchronize
function multiversioning names?
Thanks,
Uros.