This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][libgcc-math] Vectorized intrinsics for x86_64
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>, Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 15:37:03 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][libgcc-math] Vectorized intrinsics for x86_64
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603281022000.3982@t148.fhfr.qr> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0604071530310.4311@wotan.suse.de> <20060407134720.GA19834@lucon.org> <200604082322.55343.steven@gcc.gnu.org>
Steven Bosscher writes:
> On Friday 07 April 2006 15:47, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > The code is specific to Opteron. Shouldn't it be neutral to Opteron
> > and Nocona?
>
> The assembly code was "contributed by AMD" (see the original posting
> in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01611.html). Shouldn't
> Intel first make sure that ICC works as well for Opteron as it does for
> Nocona before Intel asks from AMD to write Nocona-optimized code? :-P
This is a bizarre argument.
Does the code work? Yes.
Is it an improvement over current gcc? Yes.
So check it in.
If Intel wants to contribute patches to make this code better on
Nocona, fine. But it isn't AMD's problem.
Andrew.