From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 98942 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2017 13:49:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 98927 invoked by uid 89); 19 Dec 2017 13:49:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:49:40 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7E69356DE; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:49:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-34.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.34]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DA52619AF; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:49:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id vBJDnYaq012476; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:49:35 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id vBJDnVPV012475; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:49:31 +0100 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:49:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: "Koval, Julia" Cc: Richard Biener , Uros Bizjak , GCC Patches , Kirill Yukhin Subject: Re: [patch][x86] -march=icelake Message-ID: <20171219134931.GP2353@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <4E89A029A0F8D443B436A5167BA3C53F42ACE34D@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> <4E89A029A0F8D443B436A5167BA3C53F8A45EE15@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> <4E89A029A0F8D443B436A5167BA3C53F8A461F0A@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E89A029A0F8D443B436A5167BA3C53F8A461F0A@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-12/txt/msg01254.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:34:03PM +0000, Koval, Julia wrote: > >> Maybe [] operator could be used instead of a dynamic handling here. > I had another solution in mind, with enums, which then addresses elements using its index, please look the patch attached. You can also have a look at the omp_clause_mask class in c-common.h, that is also something that has been added to handle the case where we run out of 64-bits for a particular bitmask, wanted to keep using pretty much the same interfaces and be able to handle it fast. Using 2 enums for the two halves and treating it accordingly is also an option. I agree sbitmap is too heavy for this. Jakub