This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [patch][x86] -march=icelake
- From: "Koval, Julia" <julia dot koval at intel dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Kirill Yukhin <kirill dot yukhin at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:10:06 +0000
- Subject: RE: [patch][x86] -march=icelake
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Dlp-product: dlpe-windows
- Dlp-reaction: no-action
- Dlp-version: 11.0.0.116
- References: <CAFULd4YbezpXsDTgOohBvY5u68tTb0vtL5bTBVtUcV4owJ4b9Q@mail.gmail.com> <4E89A029A0F8D443B436A5167BA3C53F8A45EE15@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> <CAFULd4anDT-gLMFv_YcH8+D_ZdUa5jZnpuxH4GOskP992UKNXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc0f=9R0d9vSXPA+0FVYFf7bhF4JCZnF15-ucsiFjMxt=A@mail.gmail.com> <4E89A029A0F8D443B436A5167BA3C53F8A461F0A@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> <20171219134931.GP2353@tucnak> <4E89A029A0F8D443B436A5167BA3C53F8A48A4CD@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> <20180122113610.GF2063@tucnak> <4E89A029A0F8D443B436A5167BA3C53F8A48A54B@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> <CAFULd4Y_YNZwXVorCEXFippjzXN4igQZbAnyJK0CRXYJgh6raQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180124110548.GA2063@tucnak>
I think we may want to extend it to more than 2 ints someday, when we run out of bits again. It won't break the existing functionality if 3rd int will be zero by default. That's why I tried to avoid "two" in the name.
Julia
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:jakub@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:06 PM
> To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>; Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
> Cc: Koval, Julia <julia.koval@intel.com>; GCC Patches <gcc-
> patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Kirill Yukhin <kirill.yukhin@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [patch][x86] -march=icelake
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:00:26PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Koval, Julia <julia.koval@intel.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, you are right, any() is not required. Here is the patch.
> >
> > Please also attach ChangeLog.
> >
> > The patch is OK for x86 target, it needs global reviewer approval
> > (Maybe Jakub, as the patch touches OMP part).
>
> I don't like the new class name nor header name, bit_mask is way too generic
> name for something very specialized (double hwi bitmask).
>
> Richard, any suggestions for this?
>
> Jakub