This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Split X86_TUNE_AVX128_OPTIMAL into X86_TUNE_AVX256_SPLIT_REGS and X86_TUNE_AVX128_OPTIMAL
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Hongtao Liu <crazylht at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:27:12 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Split X86_TUNE_AVX128_OPTIMAL into X86_TUNE_AVX256_SPLIT_REGS and X86_TUNE_AVX128_OPTIMAL
- References: <CAMZc-byLSi2N=--97rSPJMjG0FNzfpMH9L4eBj__gutX8Un0Mw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc2rjON4BcBdjufpA2Kzvkj+skNgBbczsi1Z-OB=MQY6qQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/14/19 5:21 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:35 AM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi:
>> As mentioned in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00832.html
>>> So yes, it's poorly named. A preparatory patch to clean this up
>>> (and maybe split it into TARGET_AVX256_SPLIT_REGS and TARGET_AVX128_OPTIMAL)
>>> would be nice.
>>
>> Bootstrap and regression test for i386 backend is ok.
>> Ok for trunk?
>
> It looks OK to me, please let x86 maintainers a day to comment, otherwise OK
I think this fine to go in now. Uros largely leaves the AVX bits to others.
jeff