From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 94197 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2019 12:21:46 -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 94186 invoked by uid 89); 14 Nov 2019 12:21:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=hongtao, 92448, crazylht@gmail.com, sk:ix86_tu X-HELO: mail-lj1-f195.google.com Received: from mail-lj1-f195.google.com (HELO mail-lj1-f195.google.com) (209.85.208.195) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:21:45 +0000 Received: by mail-lj1-f195.google.com with SMTP id m4so1501252ljj.8 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:21:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ixa9AbVqkFvpui4khYZbwdGWDt9c6mNu4FkLTuKLaag=; b=YHc/lMDbj3wOSHztCuOcoNc6zcyZpJwLRz2dUGsg4sxMEb+2wv98ozip5QEcm5hPyX TGukaNuCib3WS/PnjPm4nk+nc7Nn1cFLQRH8wqBUqwpYydBoF6a2fyJNHDYYXbogG1FR 7+XmAifASUfKizGANheFPnCcEmDvImSgZPY/vy2SF46GjhKFv5xdMm8fTZDfjcZ2LXKl I4d+Naruc8yV62bRCU+SMCw9HUiJa7muZXdy2Zz/5ajcrNiVE+z7rTGHEkNQC7o9z1Jg sTXctZISS3uIiio3rzEa6b3kmxDUf0yh0+u3yTNqVYPVTWi9HRFYW+5RdnslltzjjyHO cEXQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Richard Biener Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Split X86_TUNE_AVX128_OPTIMAL into X86_TUNE_AVX256_SPLIT_REGS and X86_TUNE_AVX128_OPTIMAL To: Hongtao Liu Cc: GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-11/txt/msg01161.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:35 AM Hongtao Liu wrote: > > Hi: > As mentioned in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg00832.html > > So yes, it's poorly named. A preparatory patch to clean this up > > (and maybe split it into TARGET_AVX256_SPLIT_REGS and TARGET_AVX128_OPTIMAL) > > would be nice. > > Bootstrap and regression test for i386 backend is ok. > Ok for trunk? It looks OK to me, please let x86 maintainers a day to comment, otherwise OK. Thanks, Richard. > Changelog > gcc/ > PR target/92448 > * config/i386/i386-expand.c (ix86_expand_set_or_cpymem): > Replace TARGET_AVX128_OPTIMAL with TARGET_AVX256_SPLIT_REGS. > * config/i386/i386-option.c (ix86_vec_cost): Ditto. > (ix86_reassociation_width): Ditto. > * config/i386/i386-options.c (ix86_option_override_internal): > Replace TARGET_AVX128_OPTIAML with > ix86_tune_features[X86_TUNE_AVX128_OPTIMAL] > * config/i386/i386.h (TARGET_AVX256_SPLIT_REGS): New macro. > (TARGET_AVX128_OPTIMAL): Deleted. > * config/i386/x86-tune.def (X86_TUNE_AVX256_SPLIT_REGS): New > DEF_TUNE. > > -- > BR, > Hongtao