This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, i386] Introduce switch for Skylake Server CPU.
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Kirill Yukhin <kirill dot yukhin at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:27:28 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, i386] Introduce switch for Skylake Server CPU.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150921141442 dot GD49423 at msticlxl57 dot ims dot intel dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:14:45PM +0300, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
> Hello,
> This patch introduces switches necessary for new Intel Server CPU
> (code-named Skylake).
>
> Bootstrapped & regtested.
>
> Is it ok for trunk?
>
> gcc/
> * config.gcc: Support "skx".
> * config/i386/i386-c.c (ix86_target_macros_internal): Handle
> PROCESSOR_SKX.
> * config/i386/i386.c (m_SKX): Define.
> (processor_target_table): Add "skx".
> (PTA_SKX): Define.
> (ix86_option_override_internal): Add "skx".
> (fold_builtin_cpu): Handle "skx".
> * config/i386/i386.h (TARGET_SKX): Define.
> (processor_type): Add PROCESSOR_SKX.
> * config/i386/i386.md (attr "cpu"): Add knl.
> * config/i386/x86-tune.def: Add m_KNL.
>
> gcc/testsuite/
> * gcc.target/i386/funcspec-5.c: Test avx512vl, avx512bw,
> avx512dq, avx512cd, avx512er, avx512pf and skx.
Is it a good idea to introduce further abbrevs like this?
I thought we went away from e.g. slm to silvermont, we didn't
introduce hsw but haswell, etc.
So, wouldn't it be better to add skylake-xeon instead of skx?
Jakub