[PATCH] aarch64: Add A64FX machine model
Wed Aug 5 09:38:28 GMT 2020
> Would you like the patch to be backported further than GCC 10?
That is good if it could be backported to GCC9.
> Does the attached patch to document the addition to GCC 10.3 look OK?
To avoid misunderstanding, could you please remove "for a 512-bit vector length"?
If there is anything I can do, please let me know.
Richard Sandiford <email@example.com> writes:
>Qian Jianhua <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> This patch add support for Fujitsu A64FX, as the first step of adding
>> A64FX machine model.
>> A64FX is used in FUJITSU Supercomputer PRIMEHPC FX1000, PRIMEHPC
>> FX700, and supercomputer Fugaku.
>> The official microarchitecture information of A64FX can be read at
>> 2020-08-03 Qian jianhua <email@example.com>
>> * config/aarch64/aarch64-cores.def: Add the chip name.
>> * config/aarch64/aarch64-tune.md: Regenerated.
>> * config/aarch64/aarch64.c: Add tuning table for the chip.
>> * doc/invoke.texi: Add the new name to the list.
>> Test results:
>> * Bootstrap on aarch64 ------------------------------- [OK]
>> * Regression tests ----------------------------------- [OK]
>> * Compile with -mcpu=a64fx --------------------------- [OK]
>Thanks for doing this, looks great. Pushed to trunk and the GCC 10 branch.
>Would you like the patch to be backported further than GCC 10? I wasn't sure whether GCC 9 and earlier would be useful, given that those releases didn't support the ACLE and were missing optimisations that went into GCC 10.
>Very minor, but I tweaked the changelog entry slightly to:
>2020-08-03 Qian jianhua <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>* config/aarch64/aarch64-cores.def (a64fx): New core.
>* config/aarch64/aarch64-tune.md: Regenerated.
>* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (a64fx_prefetch_tune, a64fx_tunings): New.
>* doc/invoke.texi: Add a64fx to the list.
>before committing. The changelog entries are automatically applied to files like gcc/ChangeLog on a nightly basis, and doing that would lose the context in the covering message about which chip the patch is supporting.
>Does the attached patch to document the addition to GCC 10.3 look OK?
>We'll need something similar for GCC 11, but personally I tend to prefer adding the notes closer to the release.
More information about the Gcc-patches