public inbox for binutils@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: x86 ISA v3 / v4 coverage
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2022 08:29:26 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOrZSRGO3zQXGAK_rEwHkRFtJSAGEZe1WC1TDwZLjg-W7A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c0960d4f-868c-fc5b-8ed4-eca0e990d822@suse.com>

On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 7:31 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> H.J.,
>
> the other day I came to notice two apparent anomalies:
>
> Shouldn't XOP and FMA4 be excluded from v3, just like LWP and TBM are?

Yes, they should be excluded since they don't require v3.

> Shouldn't AVX512_4FMAPS be excluded from v4, just like AVX512_4VNNIW is?

Yes, it should be since it doesn't require v4.

> And is it correct for new ISA additions (like not so long ago AVX512-FP16)
> to become part of what is covered by v3 or v4? AMX, for example, was

AVX512_FP16 requires v4.

> excluded from v3 when it was added to the code base. And e.g. GFNI is not
> part of v2 because there no "umbrella property" (VEX for v3, EVEX for v4)
> is checked, but it's strictly a white-listing of Cpu* flags.
>
> I'm afraid all of this once again is unobvious because the specification
> is not clear enough.

The ISA level is the minimum requirement.  All ISAs listed in the level can
be freely used.

-- 
H.J.

  reply	other threads:[~2022-06-02 15:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-02 14:31 Jan Beulich
2022-06-02 15:29 ` H.J. Lu [this message]
2022-06-07 13:13   ` Michael Matz
2022-06-07 21:39     ` H.J. Lu
2022-06-08 11:09       ` Michael Matz

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAMe9rOrZSRGO3zQXGAK_rEwHkRFtJSAGEZe1WC1TDwZLjg-W7A@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
    --cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
    --cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).