RE: [PATCH, i386] Enable -mprefer-avx128 by default for Bulldozer

["Fang, Changpeng" <Changpeng dot Fang at amd dot com>]

Is this patch OK to commit to trunk?

Also I would like to backport this patch to gcc 4.6 branch. Do I have to send a separate 
request or use this one?

Thanks,

Changpeng




________________________________________
From: Fang, Changpeng
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 7:12 PM
To: Jan Hubicka
Cc: Uros Bizjak; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenther@suse.de
Subject: RE: [PATCH, i386] Enable -mprefer-avx128 by default for Bulldozer

Hi,

 I have no preference in tune feature coding. But I agree with you it's better to
put similar things together. I modified the code following your suggestion.

Is it OK to commit this modified patch?

Thanks,

Changpeng



________________________________________
From: Jan Hubicka [hubicka@ucw.cz]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 6:20 PM
To: Fang, Changpeng
Cc: Uros Bizjak; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; hubicka@ucw.cz; rguenther@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH, i386] Enable -mprefer-avx128 by default for Bulldozer

Hi,
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> @@ -2128,6 +2128,9 @@ static const unsigned int x86_avx256_split_unaligned_load
>  static const unsigned int x86_avx256_split_unaligned_store
>    = m_COREI7 | m_BDVER1 | m_GENERIC;
>
> +static const unsigned int x86_prefer_avx128
> +  = m_BDVER1;

What is reason for stuff like this to not go into initial_ix86_tune_features?
I sort of liked them better when they was individual flags, but having the target
tunning flags spread across multiple places seems unnecesary.

Honza