From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 91EC33858CDB; Wed, 24 May 2023 18:13:08 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 91EC33858CDB DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1684951988; bh=pdhwqrU6UZYkbq4B2wi+joIeapKd/KHHHUg9YvKQtKE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=WZ9E2riJLUNeYqttaJ1N4fNHwdzaVRll0qqQXfimIhX2Zm5cikWqVr+oaRDMz53Y4 h5uhEPqPcSm3dJbn6cgTkEY5P7xnpRzjTnK3J8WuvA04s2mvTUBlsN7KHfDo+oF3qu ybXFmfcwMU7DBYO6BOEQMxnU9/Qq3euiG1Xax4Ic= From: "schuchart at icl dot utk.edu" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug jit/66594] jitted code should use -mtune=native Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 18:13:06 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: jit X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: schuchart at icl dot utk.edu X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D66594 Joseph changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |schuchart at icl dot utk.e= du --- Comment #10 from Joseph --- The lack of target-specific optimizations is biting us quite a bit and manu= ally specifying an architecture is not really an option, unless we duplicate the detection mechanism of GCC, which is not ideal. I am not familiar with the = GCC code base and from the discussion below it's not clear what would be needed= to advance this. If someone could provide some hints on what is missing and how/where it could be implemented we could probably take a stab at it.=20 Would it be sufficient to add a macro to the header of the targets (as suggested here https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D66594#c6) that provide host_detect_local_cpu and ignore the ones that do not provide it? Or would it be better to hard-code calls for the architectures that provide th= em, like in the referenced patch but with architecture-specific pre-processor guards? We mostly care about i386 and arm/aarch64 but covering all available bases would be necessary, I guess.=