From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-334737-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14939 invoked by alias); 30 Dec 2012 13:21:23 -0000
Received: (qmail 14920 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Dec 2012 13:21:21 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,TW_AV,TW_ZJ
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-oa0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-oa0-f51.google.com) (209.85.219.51)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:21:15 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id n12so10971638oag.24        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:21:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.212.2 with SMTP id ng2mr31376846obc.81.1356873674467; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:21:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.153.201 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:21:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAK1BsWo-iWDNcukpNqKsp7OrpE+k9riZV0=9Z3FxuGK+4DW24w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFULd4bE_YZ22s_yeGia-REBmNnhA0dM+LvboFAh0XofkxpT4g@mail.gmail.com>	<CAK1BsWoqLikf6FdkteTRFP_ESpR-vkYDX3rLgQnZELChaAKxBw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFULd4Zatns1RwNRv6-knWA0MEdCfnZbYd6Qaek81kSqiMXC+Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CAK1BsWpUdUg+ivi7pFdbUr8R45YjhbBCNhmN=98sMmW99dy-tg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAK1BsWo-iWDNcukpNqKsp7OrpE+k9riZV0=9Z3FxuGK+4DW24w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:21:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAFULd4Y3L0b8d+LPWgKuRtAx=W59gS6BANhE21e3PmEM8ZOWSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC, x86] Changes for AVX and AVX2 processors
From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
To: Vladimir Yakovlev <vbyakovl23@gmail.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-12/txt/msg01479.txt.bz2

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Vladimir Yakovlev <vbyakovl23@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did changes. Please take a look.
>
> 2012/12/29, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>:
>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Vladimir Yakovlev <vbyakovl23@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> processor_alias_table contains the same processor type for all
>>> "corei7", "corei7-avx", "core-avx-i" and "core-avx2". At least, it has
>>> consequence on checking x86_avx256_split_unaligned_load &
>>> ix86_tune_mask: for all these processors it results the same. Moreover
>>> we cannot turn new features on for AVX/AVX2 using
>>> initial_ix86_tune_features.
>>
>> corei7, corei7-avx and core-avx-i are all based on sandybridge (=
>> PROCESSOR_COREI7) architecture. The only problematic entry is
>> core-avx2, which should be based on new architecture. I propose
>> PROCESSOR_HASWELL, in the same way as we have PROCESSOR_NOCONA.

@@ -2467,6 +2470,7 @@
   "nocona",
   "core2",
   "corei7",
+  "coreavx2",
   "atom",
   "geode",
   "k6",

This string should match processor_alias_table name, so "core-avx2".

@@ -28709,6 +28716,10 @@
              arg_str = "corei7";
              priority = P_PROC_SSE4_2;
              break;
+           case PROCESSOR_HASWELL:
+             arg_str = "core_avx2";
+             priority = P_PROC_SSE4_2;
+             break;
            case PROCESSOR_ATOM:
              arg_str = "atom";
              priority = P_PROC_SSSE3;

This is part of a processor dispatcher functionality. To support this
functionality, some more changes are needed, so it is IMO best to
leave this part out for now. I would also like the author of processor
dispatcher to review changes in this area.

On a related note, it looks to me that corei7 should declare
P_PROC_AVX here (this change should be part of another patch).

Other than that , the patch looks OK, but please repost final version
with a correct ChangeLog.

Uros.