From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-319644-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 15694 invoked by alias); 26 May 2012 00:27:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 15686 invoked by uid 22791); 26 May 2012 00:27:48 -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
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-qa0-f50.google.com (HELO mail-qa0-f50.google.com) (209.85.216.50)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 26 May 2012 00:27:35 +0000
Received: by qafl39 with SMTP id l39so21003qaf.9        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 25 May 2012 17:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.212.5 with SMTP id gq5mr914291qab.1.1337992054230; Fri, 25 May 2012 17:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.169.130 with HTTP; Fri, 25 May 2012 17:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAs8HmzHAHv1jF5LQi84Db_HP=6xCBaZjdvqvgh+tAvZ+s+yeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120307004630.A503DB21B6@azwildcat.mtv.corp.google.com>	<CAFiYyc3hy9wdB0d87D0TZX1Vj7P=oH0-ARf0rE3Z9wc+i8j8UA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8HmxsZPTH4VS78G9HZOGYXxEiVi90PgRrCc6gwp9de935WQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8HmyeZE25B+vAp7aretL85WtPfyUuLAZNw7oFPFsUHZBtPA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMe9rOqUpYHNnHXMpVbN8nEPFcRV0Gr14j1YxA-Bx7Y0nMUu3w@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8Hmx7OfYrNVFsVYi_BknexVFvP0hYroH7dnusu3Z86gs-CQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMe9rOqaUNN67h64jJMugTsgrvpC7gsQx74UcKjBSGorxU0qOQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8HmztTFyAO7ze2HKrfSNLOKc7rHomAuSLSKOSRQ-bkN_dgQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMe9rOroWTs9KYo7ONfnc1aVK1pySzMfpEnF24C_ABF9TG5zhA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8Hmz64_myVEXaCrOQFBZgmW7wkBpuJnkkB_j=ebipuq92Tg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMe9rOr7Y-BPqEymmg7gApt1KroT_mtrqq8rvq4de_SM0J-zbQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8HmznitzYwUCMB9kdv1fpHMMx2c-wg3_UYf8v+E4NJf25Pw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMe9rOrSAVZp0oiz=ocrWU0h4sLeoOF2hW0qsU-fNchCG3Umuw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8Hmw1Jc_cPKVN_WfLkcpPeFiF=QLkVFf4AGuk3PjNnR_GYw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMe9rOpMjFN94+pkLJGO3xUEiDgTJ8i4Rx97-oucxue6SskKMQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8HmxrmBzsu6vejEhuequU0KYTDiCjg8HTxU1YuZ9wAm6PXA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMe9rOp_zzhPqYdzbJqRmLcDmcRo+fLS-RyDB6wB8K-uj8nu4Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8HmwXAbwYbEaxvwA7KZx=454outzb-Cx4iifzZY9gB3Zx3w@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8HmykJa+dM_efFRkL=7BTNQ5yzCEj1KyjKU_kTZNL2GefSQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMe9rOoaOyQyWfVwacYmSX7RjKRJmPdHT-o3ZuTmrwa9xpqygQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8HmzZkx+FfZ=fcfnfG7Z7buF5+z_GN_gA4r_a_80NUuTzdg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMe9rOrdZaTDzakgpHxXWE3hhUvR7LNO1NkUrtAJJCjTjz_mjg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8Hmzw=tTGLypq1GQ7cA=DFupP8VpwB5QiE+jwLcYOovV=YQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAMe9rOqf0Baxo5SynMcfYhto=oRUp8XRC2NSCofZynRORuDGeA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8HmzHAHv1jF5LQi84Db_HP=6xCBaZjdvqvgh+tAvZ+s+yeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 00:27:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOqHg+sU4Rw3B8nEV3dstEYkdZN-nLrrWNk-VmMGY_z5yg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: User directed Function Multiversioning via Function Overloading (issue5752064)
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>, Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>, 	Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>, reply@codereview.appspotmail.com, 	gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, David Li <davidxl@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: 2012-05/txt/msg01787.txt.bz2

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com> wrot=
e:
> Hi H.J.,
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:07 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com> =
wrote:
>>> Hi H.J,
>>>
>>> =A0 Attaching new patch with 2 test cases, mv2.C checks ISAs only and
>>> mv1.C checks ISAs and arches mixed. Right now, checking only arches is
>>> not needed as they are mutually exclusive, any order should be fine.
>>>
>>> Patch also available for review here: =A0http://codereview.appspot.com/=
5752064
>>
>> Sorry for the delay. =A0It looks OK except for the function order in tes=
cases.
>> I think you should rearrange them so that they are not in the same order
>> as the priority.
>
> I am not sure I understand. The function order is mixed up in the
> declarations, I have explicitly commented about this. I only do the
> checking in order which I must, right?
>
>

gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/mv2.C has

int __attribute__ ((target("avx2")))
foo ()
{
  return 1;
}

int __attribute__ ((target("avx")))
foo ()
{
  return 2;
}

int __attribute__ ((target("popcnt")))
foo ()
{
  return 3;
}

int __attribute__ ((target("sse4.2")))
foo ()
{
  return 4;
}

int __attribute__ ((target("sse4.1")))
foo ()
{
  return 5;
}

int __attribute__ ((target("ssse3")))
foo ()
{
  return 6;
}

int __attribute__ ((target("sse3")))
foo ()
{
  return 7;
}

int __attribute__ ((target("sse2")))
foo ()
{
  return 8;
}

int __attribute__ ((target("sse")))
foo ()
{
  return 9;
}

int __attribute__ ((target("mmx")))
foo ()
{
  return 10;
}

It is most in the priority order.

BTW, I noticed:

[hjl@gnu-6 pr14170]$ readelf -sW libgcc.a | grep __cpu_model
    20: 0000000000000010    16 OBJECT  GLOBAL HIDDEN   COM __cpu_model
[hjl@gnu-6 pr14170]$ readelf -sW libgcc_s.so | grep __cpu_model
    82: 0000000000214ff0    16 OBJECT  GLOBAL DEFAULT   24
__cpu_model@@GCC_4.8.0
   310: 0000000000214ff0    16 OBJECT  GLOBAL DEFAULT   24 __cpu_model
[hjl@gnu-6 pr14170]$

Why is __cpu_model in both libgcc.a and libgcc_s.o?


H.J.