From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81D643856DD6 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:18:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 81D643856DD6 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1691680731; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=jFHZEOJ6iDrI0l/HLtowJaERpYHLpe7xKFTFOnJcYyA=; b=a+ljsNAOwm2IXPeLr9XZDfUP9VDvG9MQJEYnC/0wImn4HU1R7rgWkUh9A9XfcOFQ7LAI/X U2n2WA5npZ0pJNxuui74owiD0itmlh8uIJo2RcNcoTWLRl7chgjfLV8aGRERrj1UdY2u2h w4bSLXx0fFLsMBokdWEus7ManRPjppU= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-615-TkEO7u3qPlC5eP6bSp1yow-1; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:18:47 -0400 X-MC-Unique: TkEO7u3qPlC5eP6bSp1yow-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5922805587; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:18:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.45.225.169]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F80DC15BAE; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:18:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 37AFIgai2355583 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 10 Aug 2023 17:18:42 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 37AFId202355582; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 17:18:39 +0200 Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 17:18:39 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: "Zhang, Annita" Cc: "Jiang, Haochen" , "Beulich, Jan" , Phoebe Wang , Joseph Myers , "Wang, Phoebe" , Hongtao Liu , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "ubizjak@gmail.com" , "Liu, Hongtao" , x86-64-abi , llvm-dev , Craig Topper , Richard Biener Subject: Re: Intel AVX10.1 Compiler Design and Support Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <8fb470de-d2a3-3e71-be6a-ccc7f4f31a31@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.8 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 03:08:11PM +0000, Zhang, Annita via Gcc-patches wrote: > > IMO it is not acceptable for AVX10-256 to generate zmm registers. > > > > If I have to choose among the three proposal, the second is better. > > > > But the best choice I suppose is to keep what we are doing currently, which is > > passing them in memory and emit a warning. It is a reasonable behavior. Completely agree on this. If anything in the psABI should be changed, that IMHO would be just clarification if it is not clear enough that when __m256 and/or __m512 are passed on ISAs which do not support those they are passed in memory. That is what the psABI was clearly effectively saying before the __m256 resp. __m512 support has been added there. So yes, warn and use memory if ISA doesn't support those. Jakub