[PATCH] Correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS

[PATCH] Correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS

[Cui,Lili]

This patch is to correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
Make check-gas is ok.
Ok for master?

Thanks,
Lili.

Change it from "CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" to "CpuAVX512_FP16"

opcodes/

	* i386-gen.c (cpu_flag_init): Change cpu_flags of
	CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
---
 opcodes/i386-gen.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/opcodes/i386-gen.c b/opcodes/i386-gen.c
index d18a7d2754..5dc224efdb 100644
--- a/opcodes/i386-gen.c
+++ b/opcodes/i386-gen.c
@@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ static initializer cpu_flag_init[] =
   { "CPU_ANY_AVX512DQ_FLAGS",
     "CpuAVX512DQ" },
   { "CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS",
-    "CpuAVX512BW|CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" },
+    "CpuAVX512BW|CpuAVX512_FP16" },
   { "CPU_ANY_AVX512VL_FLAGS",
     "CpuAVX512VL" },
   { "CPU_ANY_AVX512IFMA_FLAGS",
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] Correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS

[Jan Beulich]

On 23.06.2022 09:14, Cui,Lili wrote:
> This patch is to correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
> Make check-gas is ok.
> Ok for master?
> 
> Thanks,
> Lili.
> 
> Change it from "CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" to "CpuAVX512_FP16"

You don't say what's wrong with what there is right now. I for one
think what we have is correct: If one disables BW, _all_ its
dependents should be disabled as well, which transitively means all
dependents of FP16.

Jan

> opcodes/
> 
> 	* i386-gen.c (cpu_flag_init): Change cpu_flags of
> 	CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
> ---
>  opcodes/i386-gen.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/opcodes/i386-gen.c b/opcodes/i386-gen.c
> index d18a7d2754..5dc224efdb 100644
> --- a/opcodes/i386-gen.c
> +++ b/opcodes/i386-gen.c
> @@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ static initializer cpu_flag_init[] =
>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512DQ_FLAGS",
>      "CpuAVX512DQ" },
>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS",
> -    "CpuAVX512BW|CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" },
> +    "CpuAVX512BW|CpuAVX512_FP16" },
>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512VL_FLAGS",
>      "CpuAVX512VL" },
>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512IFMA_FLAGS",

RE: [PATCH] Correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS

[Cui, Lili]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 3:30 PM
> To: Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com>
> Cc: binutils@sourceware.org; hjl.tools@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS
> 
> On 23.06.2022 09:14, Cui,Lili wrote:
> > This patch is to correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
> > Make check-gas is ok.
> > Ok for master?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lili.
> >
> > Change it from "CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" to "CpuAVX512_FP16"
> 
> You don't say what's wrong with what there is right now. I for one think what
> we have is correct: If one disables BW, _all_ its dependents should be
> disabled as well, which transitively means all dependents of FP16.
> 
Hi Jan,
Agree with that " If one disables BW, _all_ its dependents should be disabled as well ".
I saw the form of "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS" today, and to be consistent with it, I thought "CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" was wrong at that time. But after reading your email, I found "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS" to be the only one that uses cpu_flags instead of CPU_ANY* .

{ "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS",
"CpuAVX512F|CpuAVX512CD|CpuAVX512ER|CpuAVX512PF|CpuAVX512DQ|CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS|CpuAVX512VL|CpuAVX512IFMA|CpuAVX512VBMI|CpuAVX512_4FMAPS|CpuAVX512_4VNNIW|CpuAVX512_VPOPCNTDQ|CpuAVX512_VBMI2|CpuAVX512_VNNI|CpuAVX512_BITALG|CpuAVX512_BF16|CpuAVX512_VP2INTERSECT" },

Regards,
Lili.

> Jan
> 
> > opcodes/
> >
> > 	* i386-gen.c (cpu_flag_init): Change cpu_flags of
> > 	CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
> > ---
> >  opcodes/i386-gen.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/opcodes/i386-gen.c b/opcodes/i386-gen.c index
> > d18a7d2754..5dc224efdb 100644
> > --- a/opcodes/i386-gen.c
> > +++ b/opcodes/i386-gen.c
> > @@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ static initializer cpu_flag_init[] =
> >    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512DQ_FLAGS",
> >      "CpuAVX512DQ" },
> >    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS",
> > -    "CpuAVX512BW|CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" },
> > +    "CpuAVX512BW|CpuAVX512_FP16" },
> >    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512VL_FLAGS",
> >      "CpuAVX512VL" },
> >    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512IFMA_FLAGS",

Re: [PATCH] Correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS

[H.J. Lu]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:08 AM Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 3:30 PM
> > To: Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com>
> > Cc: binutils@sourceware.org; hjl.tools@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS
> >
> > On 23.06.2022 09:14, Cui,Lili wrote:
> > > This patch is to correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
> > > Make check-gas is ok.
> > > Ok for master?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Lili.
> > >
> > > Change it from "CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" to "CpuAVX512_FP16"
> >
> > You don't say what's wrong with what there is right now. I for one think what
> > we have is correct: If one disables BW, _all_ its dependents should be
> > disabled as well, which transitively means all dependents of FP16.
> >
> Hi Jan,
> Agree with that " If one disables BW, _all_ its dependents should be disabled as well ".
> I saw the form of "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS" today, and to be consistent with it, I thought "CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" was wrong at that time. But after reading your email, I found "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS" to be the only one that uses cpu_flags instead of CPU_ANY* .
>
> { "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS",
> "CpuAVX512F|CpuAVX512CD|CpuAVX512ER|CpuAVX512PF|CpuAVX512DQ|CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS|CpuAVX512VL|CpuAVX512IFMA|CpuAVX512VBMI|CpuAVX512_4FMAPS|CpuAVX512_4VNNIW|CpuAVX512_VPOPCNTDQ|CpuAVX512_VBMI2|CpuAVX512_VNNI|CpuAVX512_BITALG|CpuAVX512_BF16|CpuAVX512_VP2INTERSECT" },
>
> Regards,
> Lili.
>
> > Jan
> >
> > > opcodes/
> > >
> > >     * i386-gen.c (cpu_flag_init): Change cpu_flags of
> > >     CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
> > > ---
> > >  opcodes/i386-gen.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/opcodes/i386-gen.c b/opcodes/i386-gen.c index
> > > d18a7d2754..5dc224efdb 100644
> > > --- a/opcodes/i386-gen.c
> > > +++ b/opcodes/i386-gen.c
> > > @@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ static initializer cpu_flag_init[] =
> > >    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512DQ_FLAGS",
> > >      "CpuAVX512DQ" },
> > >    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS",
> > > -    "CpuAVX512BW|CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" },
> > > +    "CpuAVX512BW|CpuAVX512_FP16" },
> > >    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512VL_FLAGS",
> > >      "CpuAVX512VL" },
> > >    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512IFMA_FLAGS",
>

Since CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS is the same as CpuAVX512_FP16,
this change is nop.  On the other hand, CPU_ANY shouldn't be used to define
another CPU_ANY.  Please also replace CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS with
CpuAVX512BW|CpuAVX512_FP16 for CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS.

Thanks.

-- 
H.J.

Re: [PATCH] Correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS

[Jan Beulich]

On 23.06.2022 18:04, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:08 AM Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 3:30 PM
>>> To: Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com>
>>> Cc: binutils@sourceware.org; hjl.tools@gmail.com
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS
>>>
>>> On 23.06.2022 09:14, Cui,Lili wrote:
>>>> This patch is to correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
>>>> Make check-gas is ok.
>>>> Ok for master?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Lili.
>>>>
>>>> Change it from "CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" to "CpuAVX512_FP16"
>>>
>>> You don't say what's wrong with what there is right now. I for one think what
>>> we have is correct: If one disables BW, _all_ its dependents should be
>>> disabled as well, which transitively means all dependents of FP16.
>>>
>> Hi Jan,
>> Agree with that " If one disables BW, _all_ its dependents should be disabled as well ".
>> I saw the form of "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS" today, and to be consistent with it, I thought "CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" was wrong at that time. But after reading your email, I found "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS" to be the only one that uses cpu_flags instead of CPU_ANY* .
>>
>> { "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS",
>> "CpuAVX512F|CpuAVX512CD|CpuAVX512ER|CpuAVX512PF|CpuAVX512DQ|CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS|CpuAVX512VL|CpuAVX512IFMA|CpuAVX512VBMI|CpuAVX512_4FMAPS|CpuAVX512_4VNNIW|CpuAVX512_VPOPCNTDQ|CpuAVX512_VBMI2|CpuAVX512_VNNI|CpuAVX512_BITALG|CpuAVX512_BF16|CpuAVX512_VP2INTERSECT" },
>>
>> Regards,
>> Lili.
>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>> opcodes/
>>>>
>>>>     * i386-gen.c (cpu_flag_init): Change cpu_flags of
>>>>     CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
>>>> ---
>>>>  opcodes/i386-gen.c | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/opcodes/i386-gen.c b/opcodes/i386-gen.c index
>>>> d18a7d2754..5dc224efdb 100644
>>>> --- a/opcodes/i386-gen.c
>>>> +++ b/opcodes/i386-gen.c
>>>> @@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ static initializer cpu_flag_init[] =
>>>>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512DQ_FLAGS",
>>>>      "CpuAVX512DQ" },
>>>>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS",
>>>> -    "CpuAVX512BW|CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" },
>>>> +    "CpuAVX512BW|CpuAVX512_FP16" },
>>>>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512VL_FLAGS",
>>>>      "CpuAVX512VL" },
>>>>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512IFMA_FLAGS",
>>
> 
> Since CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS is the same as CpuAVX512_FP16,
> this change is nop.  On the other hand, CPU_ANY shouldn't be used to define
> another CPU_ANY.

Why? Imo that's exactly how it should be, as long as the purpose of
CPU_ANY_* is the use for processing of negative .arch directives.

Jan

Re: [PATCH] Correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS

[H.J. Lu]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 23.06.2022 18:04, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:08 AM Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> >>> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 3:30 PM
> >>> To: Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com>
> >>> Cc: binutils@sourceware.org; hjl.tools@gmail.com
> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS
> >>>
> >>> On 23.06.2022 09:14, Cui,Lili wrote:
> >>>> This patch is to correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
> >>>> Make check-gas is ok.
> >>>> Ok for master?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Lili.
> >>>>
> >>>> Change it from "CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" to "CpuAVX512_FP16"
> >>>
> >>> You don't say what's wrong with what there is right now. I for one think what
> >>> we have is correct: If one disables BW, _all_ its dependents should be
> >>> disabled as well, which transitively means all dependents of FP16.
> >>>
> >> Hi Jan,
> >> Agree with that " If one disables BW, _all_ its dependents should be disabled as well ".
> >> I saw the form of "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS" today, and to be consistent with it, I thought "CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" was wrong at that time. But after reading your email, I found "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS" to be the only one that uses cpu_flags instead of CPU_ANY* .
> >>
> >> { "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS",
> >> "CpuAVX512F|CpuAVX512CD|CpuAVX512ER|CpuAVX512PF|CpuAVX512DQ|CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS|CpuAVX512VL|CpuAVX512IFMA|CpuAVX512VBMI|CpuAVX512_4FMAPS|CpuAVX512_4VNNIW|CpuAVX512_VPOPCNTDQ|CpuAVX512_VBMI2|CpuAVX512_VNNI|CpuAVX512_BITALG|CpuAVX512_BF16|CpuAVX512_VP2INTERSECT" },
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Lili.
> >>
> >>> Jan
> >>>
> >>>> opcodes/
> >>>>
> >>>>     * i386-gen.c (cpu_flag_init): Change cpu_flags of
> >>>>     CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  opcodes/i386-gen.c | 2 +-
> >>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/opcodes/i386-gen.c b/opcodes/i386-gen.c index
> >>>> d18a7d2754..5dc224efdb 100644
> >>>> --- a/opcodes/i386-gen.c
> >>>> +++ b/opcodes/i386-gen.c
> >>>> @@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ static initializer cpu_flag_init[] =
> >>>>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512DQ_FLAGS",
> >>>>      "CpuAVX512DQ" },
> >>>>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS",
> >>>> -    "CpuAVX512BW|CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" },
> >>>> +    "CpuAVX512BW|CpuAVX512_FP16" },
> >>>>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512VL_FLAGS",
> >>>>      "CpuAVX512VL" },
> >>>>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512IFMA_FLAGS",
> >>
> >
> > Since CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS is the same as CpuAVX512_FP16,
> > this change is nop.  On the other hand, CPU_ANY shouldn't be used to define
> > another CPU_ANY.
>
> Why? Imo that's exactly how it should be, as long as the purpose of
> CPU_ANY_* is the use for processing of negative .arch directives.
>

Assuming AVX512_FP16 also requires BMI2, when AVX512F is disabled,
AVX512_FP16 should be disabled, but not BMI2.

-- 
H.J.

Re: [PATCH] Correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS

[H.J. Lu]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:31 AM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 23.06.2022 18:04, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:08 AM Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> > >>> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 3:30 PM
> > >>> To: Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com>
> > >>> Cc: binutils@sourceware.org; hjl.tools@gmail.com
> > >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS
> > >>>
> > >>> On 23.06.2022 09:14, Cui,Lili wrote:
> > >>>> This patch is to correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
> > >>>> Make check-gas is ok.
> > >>>> Ok for master?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Lili.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Change it from "CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" to "CpuAVX512_FP16"
> > >>>
> > >>> You don't say what's wrong with what there is right now. I for one think what
> > >>> we have is correct: If one disables BW, _all_ its dependents should be
> > >>> disabled as well, which transitively means all dependents of FP16.
> > >>>
> > >> Hi Jan,
> > >> Agree with that " If one disables BW, _all_ its dependents should be disabled as well ".
> > >> I saw the form of "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS" today, and to be consistent with it, I thought "CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" was wrong at that time. But after reading your email, I found "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS" to be the only one that uses cpu_flags instead of CPU_ANY* .
> > >>
> > >> { "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS",
> > >> "CpuAVX512F|CpuAVX512CD|CpuAVX512ER|CpuAVX512PF|CpuAVX512DQ|CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS|CpuAVX512VL|CpuAVX512IFMA|CpuAVX512VBMI|CpuAVX512_4FMAPS|CpuAVX512_4VNNIW|CpuAVX512_VPOPCNTDQ|CpuAVX512_VBMI2|CpuAVX512_VNNI|CpuAVX512_BITALG|CpuAVX512_BF16|CpuAVX512_VP2INTERSECT" },
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Lili.
> > >>
> > >>> Jan
> > >>>
> > >>>> opcodes/
> > >>>>
> > >>>>     * i386-gen.c (cpu_flag_init): Change cpu_flags of
> > >>>>     CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>>  opcodes/i386-gen.c | 2 +-
> > >>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> diff --git a/opcodes/i386-gen.c b/opcodes/i386-gen.c index
> > >>>> d18a7d2754..5dc224efdb 100644
> > >>>> --- a/opcodes/i386-gen.c
> > >>>> +++ b/opcodes/i386-gen.c
> > >>>> @@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ static initializer cpu_flag_init[] =
> > >>>>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512DQ_FLAGS",
> > >>>>      "CpuAVX512DQ" },
> > >>>>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS",
> > >>>> -    "CpuAVX512BW|CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" },
> > >>>> +    "CpuAVX512BW|CpuAVX512_FP16" },
> > >>>>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512VL_FLAGS",
> > >>>>      "CpuAVX512VL" },
> > >>>>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512IFMA_FLAGS",
> > >>
> > >
> > > Since CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS is the same as CpuAVX512_FP16,
> > > this change is nop.  On the other hand, CPU_ANY shouldn't be used to define
> > > another CPU_ANY.
> >
> > Why? Imo that's exactly how it should be, as long as the purpose of
> > CPU_ANY_* is the use for processing of negative .arch directives.
> >
>
> Assuming AVX512_FP16 also requires BMI2, when AVX512F is disabled,
> AVX512_FP16 should be disabled, but not BMI2.
>

I was wrong.  The current code isn't wrong since

 { "CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS",
   "CpuAVX512BW|CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" },

indicates that disabling AVX512BW will also disable AVX512BW +
AVX512F16 + any ISAs which
depend on AVX512FP16.   If there is another ISA which depends on
AVX512FP16, we don't
need to change CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.

-- 
H.J.

RE: [PATCH] Correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS

[Cui, Lili]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 9:56 AM
> To: Beulich, Jan <JBeulich@suse.com>
> Cc: binutils@sourceware.org; Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS
> 
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:31 AM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 23.06.2022 18:04, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:08 AM Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> > > >>> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 3:30 PM
> > > >>> To: Cui, Lili <lili.cui@intel.com>
> > > >>> Cc: binutils@sourceware.org; hjl.tools@gmail.com
> > > >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Correct cpu_flags for
> > > >>> CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 23.06.2022 09:14, Cui,Lili wrote:
> > > >>>> This patch is to correct cpu_flags for CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
> > > >>>> Make check-gas is ok.
> > > >>>> Ok for master?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>> Lili.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Change it from "CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" to
> "CpuAVX512_FP16"
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You don't say what's wrong with what there is right now. I for
> > > >>> one think what we have is correct: If one disables BW, _all_ its
> > > >>> dependents should be disabled as well, which transitively means all
> dependents of FP16.
> > > >>>
> > > >> Hi Jan,
> > > >> Agree with that " If one disables BW, _all_ its dependents should be
> disabled as well ".
> > > >> I saw the form of "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS" today, and to be
> consistent with it, I thought "CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" was wrong at
> that time. But after reading your email, I found "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS"
> to be the only one that uses cpu_flags instead of CPU_ANY* .
> > > >>
> > > >> { "CPU_ANY_AVX512F_FLAGS",
> > > >>
> "CpuAVX512F|CpuAVX512CD|CpuAVX512ER|CpuAVX512PF|CpuAVX512DQ|
> CPU_A
> > > >>
> NY_AVX512BW_FLAGS|CpuAVX512VL|CpuAVX512IFMA|CpuAVX512VBMI|C
> puAVX5
> > > >>
> 12_4FMAPS|CpuAVX512_4VNNIW|CpuAVX512_VPOPCNTDQ|CpuAVX512_V
> BMI2|Cp
> > > >>
> uAVX512_VNNI|CpuAVX512_BITALG|CpuAVX512_BF16|CpuAVX512_VP2INT
> ERSE
> > > >> CT" },
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >> Lili.
> > > >>
> > > >>> Jan
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> opcodes/
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>     * i386-gen.c (cpu_flag_init): Change cpu_flags of
> > > >>>>     CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
> > > >>>> ---
> > > >>>>  opcodes/i386-gen.c | 2 +-
> > > >>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> diff --git a/opcodes/i386-gen.c b/opcodes/i386-gen.c index
> > > >>>> d18a7d2754..5dc224efdb 100644
> > > >>>> --- a/opcodes/i386-gen.c
> > > >>>> +++ b/opcodes/i386-gen.c
> > > >>>> @@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ static initializer cpu_flag_init[] =
> > > >>>>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512DQ_FLAGS",
> > > >>>>      "CpuAVX512DQ" },
> > > >>>>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS",
> > > >>>> -    "CpuAVX512BW|CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" },
> > > >>>> +    "CpuAVX512BW|CpuAVX512_FP16" },
> > > >>>>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512VL_FLAGS",
> > > >>>>      "CpuAVX512VL" },
> > > >>>>    { "CPU_ANY_AVX512IFMA_FLAGS",
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Since CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS is the same as CpuAVX512_FP16,
> > > > this change is nop.  On the other hand, CPU_ANY shouldn't be used
> > > > to define another CPU_ANY.
> > >
> > > Why? Imo that's exactly how it should be, as long as the purpose of
> > > CPU_ANY_* is the use for processing of negative .arch directives.
> > >
> >
> > Assuming AVX512_FP16 also requires BMI2, when AVX512F is disabled,
> > AVX512_FP16 should be disabled, but not BMI2.
> >
> 
> I was wrong.  The current code isn't wrong since
> 
>  { "CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS",
>    "CpuAVX512BW|CPU_ANY_AVX512_FP16_FLAGS" },
> 
> indicates that disabling AVX512BW will also disable AVX512BW +
> AVX512F16 + any ISAs which
> depend on AVX512FP16.   If there is another ISA which depends on
> AVX512FP16, we don't
> need to change CPU_ANY_AVX512BW_FLAGS.
> 

Agree with you, Jan is right. The current code is correct, we don't need any changes here.

Thanks,
Lili.

> --
> H.J.