From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-334719-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 2088 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2012 05:26:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 2054 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Dec 2012 05:26:29 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,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-vc0-f180.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f180.google.com) (209.85.220.180)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 05:26:24 +0000
Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id p16so11215300vcq.25        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 21:26:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.238.148 with SMTP id ks20mr54701694vcb.5.1356758783125; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 21:26:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.58.237.202 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 21:26:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAFULd4bE_YZ22s_yeGia-REBmNnhA0dM+LvboFAh0XofkxpT4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFULd4bE_YZ22s_yeGia-REBmNnhA0dM+LvboFAh0XofkxpT4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 05:26:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAK1BsWoqLikf6FdkteTRFP_ESpR-vkYDX3rLgQnZELChaAKxBw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC, x86] Changes for AVX and AVX2 processors
From: Vladimir Yakovlev <vbyakovl23@gmail.com>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
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/msg01461.txt.bz2

Hello,

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.
.
2012/12/28 Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>:
> Hello!
>
>> New processors core-avx and core-avx2 are added. It was done to have
>> possibilities to turn new features on for these processors. Please review.
>
> I don't think this is a good approach, you are mixing an architecture
> with an ISA extension in the name. We already have
> processor_alias_table, where processor architecture and features
> (extensions) can be activated, depending on the name.
>
> Uros.