This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Allow setting CpuVRex bit in .arch directive
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, Kirill Yukhin <kirill dot yukhin at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:20:37 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow setting CpuVRex bit in .arch directive
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160521165405 dot GQ28550 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <20160521170615 dot GE1875 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOrSYftrqeWjZQYmWmn7x_h9vHfz9Fcy3=UVUDNr+O2aCA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20160524174933 dot GN28550 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOqQp54VXOvQPVwZDzSGDH1=_YB6Ghnekh=SRJQcsCVY3w at mail dot gmail dot com> <20160524190716 dot GQ28550 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOo0YZqENDbkVF_KVbCi9KP11PYXWGhG-_JNyR+wUwmOmg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOr5O8FhwFw1vFk2rRfcf8tfztvrHGSXhSTaMAeL5LLUgg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20160525175843 dot GU28550 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOpj3xZeBqJFwQQH8n5bc+iBffEOVm04Y=t7VgAh5PXVFQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20160525183855 dot GV28550 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOrMN6rc0zwiAQmp4anHX32ZB2foPFCxKk_nR-rb1+JVBg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:12 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:25:48AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> { "CPU_ANY_AVX_FLAGS",
>>> - "CpuAVX|CpuAVX2|CpuAVX512F|CpuAVX512CD|CpuAVX512ER|CpuAVX512PF" },
>>> + "CpuAVX|CpuAVX2|CpuAVX512F|CpuAVX512CD|CpuAVX512ER|CpuAVX512PF|CpuAVX512DQ|CpuAVX512BW|CpuAVX512VL|CpuAVX512IFMA|CpuAVX512VBMI" },
>>
>> Shouldn't this also include other flags that imply AVX?
>> Like CpuFMA|CpuFMA4|CpuXOP ?
>>
>> Shouldn't CPU_ANY_SSE_FLAGS include also all the new CPU_ANY_AVX_FLAGS?
>>
>> What about CPU_F16C_FLAGS and CpuF16C? E.g. in GCC -mf16c implies
>> -mavx and -mno-avx implies -mno-f16c. So shouldn't CPU_F16C_FLAGS also
>> include CpuMMX|CpuSSE|CpuSSE2|CpuSSE3|CpuSSSE3|CpuSSE4_1|CpuSSE4_2|CpuAVX
>> and CPU_ANY_AVX_FLAGS include CpuF16C and similarly CPU_ANY_SSE_FLAGS?
>>
>
> Let me think about it.
I opened:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20145
--
H.J.