This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] BZ #14059 - HAS_FMA4 check needs to also check for AVX

From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>
To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
Cc: law at redhat dot com, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 08:43:30 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH] BZ #14059 - HAS_FMA4 check needs to also check for AVX
References: <hopqaf6pz3.fsf@byrd.suse.de><CADZpyiyWVvZ0Z8+98rqfYYdWKKXEPVGpt18b=UbDnvfHM-50JA@mail.gmail.com><CADZpyiycOx29T2-w2ctaoGz0jn6ZFPuiVRsSAN_=oKu1hV5y+g@mail.gmail.com><4FACB302.2010407@suse.de><CADZpyiyGONFHBvFt+HKvAB18+iCmL+f8mpN6=WTVJv2eESiw5A@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Carlos O'Donell
<carlos@systemhalted.org> wrote:
>> + ?/* FMA4 depends on AVX support. ?*/
>> + ?if (__cpu_features.cpuid[COMMON_CPUID_INDEX_80000001].ecx & bit_FMA4
>> + ? ? ?&& HAS_AVX)
>
> Shouldn't both of these be index_FMA4_Usable?

I see you fixed these and my MUA didn't update to show your most
recent messages.

I'll review your most recent patch.

Cheers,
Carlos.

References:
- [PATCH] BZ #14059 - HAS_FMA4 check needs to also check for AVX
  - From: Andreas Jaeger
- Re: [PATCH] BZ #14059 - HAS_FMA4 check needs to also check for AVX
  - From: Carlos O'Donell
- Re: [PATCH] BZ #14059 - HAS_FMA4 check needs to also check for AVX
  - From: Carlos O'Donell
- Re: [PATCH] BZ #14059 - HAS_FMA4 check needs to also check for AVX
  - From: Andreas Jaeger
- Re: [PATCH] BZ #14059 - HAS_FMA4 check needs to also check for AVX
  - From: Carlos O'Donell

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]