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

[Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 4:36 PM Iain Sandoe <idsandoe@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
I've upstream those patches to public
https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/tree/users/intel/liuhongt/upstream
Also if you're intereted in Binutils patches, it's in
https://gitlab.com/x86-binutils/binutils-gdb/-/tree/users/intel/liuhongt/upstream
>
> Iain



-- 
BR,
Hongtao