From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <matz@suse.de>
Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1A0A395B458
 for <binutils@sourceware.org>; Wed,  8 Jun 2022 11:09:56 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org E1A0A395B458
Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134])
 by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1122921BD6;
 Wed,  8 Jun 2022 11:09:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wotan.suse.de (wotan.suse.de [10.160.0.1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B4F12C141;
 Wed,  8 Jun 2022 11:09:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wotan.suse.de (Postfix, from userid 10510)
 id 035126739; Wed,  8 Jun 2022 11:09:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by wotan.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D8E6737;
 Wed,  8 Jun 2022 11:09:55 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2022 11:09:55 +0000 (UTC)
From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: x86 ISA v3 / v4 coverage
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOpzNPM+YVvyhMedRowZh1=pfBbX7vez9As8qvO0vn3WCw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.20.2206081108470.12633@wotan.suse.de>
References: <c0960d4f-868c-fc5b-8ed4-eca0e990d822@suse.com>
 <CAMe9rOrZSRGO3zQXGAK_rEwHkRFtJSAGEZe1WC1TDwZLjg-W7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LSU.2.20.2206071310070.12633@wotan.suse.de>
 <CAMe9rOpzNPM+YVvyhMedRowZh1=pfBbX7vez9As8qvO0vn3WCw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LSU 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
 DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: binutils@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Binutils mailing list <binutils.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/binutils>,
 <mailto:binutils-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/binutils>,
 <mailto:binutils-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 11:10:00 -0000

Hello,

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022, H.J. Lu wrote:

> > > > 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.
> >
> > But it can't be part of v3 or v4.  New ISA additions never can become
> > part of an existing ISA level, once it's released it's fixated.  I just
> > wanted to state this explicitely because it seems Jan used "part of vX"
> > to mean "binaries stating to require vX can use ISA feature so-and-so",
> > whereas you seem to mean "ISA feature so-and-so requires at least vX".
> 
> This is because the ISA level marker is a minimum requirement.

Then we are in agreement.  I merely wouldn't call that "be part of", like 
I wouldn't call AVX to be a part of SSE2.


Ciao,
Michael.