Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add Intel Sierra Forest Instructions

[Iain Sandoe <idsandoe@googlemail.com>]

> On 14 Oct 2022, at 09:30, Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 4:24 PM Iain Sandoe <idsandoe@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 14 Oct 2022, at 09:20, Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 4:14 PM Iain Sandoe via Gcc-patches
>>> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Haochen
>>>> 
>>>>> On 14 Oct 2022, at 08:54, Haochen Jiang via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> These six patches aimed to add Intel Sierra Forest instructions, including
>>>>> AVX-IFMA, AVX-VNNI0INT8, AVX-NE-CONVERT, CMPccXADD. We also added intrinsic
>>>>> for vector __bf16 in this series of patch and Sierra Forest Support.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The information is based on newly released
>>>>> Intel Architecture Instruction Set Extensions and Future Features.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The document comes following:
>>>>> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/develop/download/intel-architecture-instruction-set-extensions-programming-reference.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk?
>>>> 
>>>> Have you tested that the testcases work on older platforms that do not have support
>>>> for the new instructions in their assemblers?
>>>> 
>>>> I could not see any target-requires changes in the testcases .. hence my question.
>>>> 
>>> Guess you are looking at compile tests?
>> 
>> yes, compile tests would need support from the assembler.

oops, not enough coffee - I’m talking rubbish here - assembler output should be fine,

>>> For runtime test, we have add assembler check(target-requires changed)
>>> plus runtime check(builtin_cpu_supports)
>>> .i.e.
>>> 
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx-ifma-vpmaddhuq-2.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
>>> +/* { dg-do run } */
>>> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mavxifma" } */
>>> +/* { dg-require-effective-target avxifma } */
>>> 
>>> Do I miss some?
>> 
>> I would need to look at the sources after patching (perhaps they already have
>> suitable target-requires that did not show up in the patch).
>> 
>> Do you have this series as a branch somewhere that I can try on one of the
>> like affected platforms?
> 
> Not yet.
> Do we have any external place to put those patches so folks from the
> community can validate before it's committed, HJ?

I’d still like to be able to test if that can be done - I’ve already got a large number of
fails from new testcases in earlier additions.

Iain