This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils 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] Add FMA4 support in binutils

From: "rajagopal, dwarak" <dwarak dot rajagopal at amd dot com>
To: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at novell dot com>
Cc: <binutils at sourceware dot org>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:07:20 -0500
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Add FMA4 support in binutils
References: <E7FB0F2BB5FEF242BB2929F02A12B8F337501A@SAUSEXMB2.amd.com> <4A523B1A0200007800009066@vpn.id2.novell.com>

Hi Jan,

> I had already asked this question once without getting an answer, but
I
> think it should have an answer before this change can go in
Sorry I think I missed your question earlier.

> Is AMD indeed
> planning on implementing FMA in a way Intel planned to originally, but
> changed from since? 
Yes. AMD is implementing FMA4 with the same way/opcode map as Intel
planned originally.

> If so, what are the plans between the two
> implementations to avoid future collision in the opcode space?
> 
AMD' implementation of FMA4 has been coordinated with Intel to avoid any
collision for this opcode space.

Thanks,
Dwarak

References:
- [PATCH] Add FMA4 support in binutils
  - From: rajagopal, dwarak
- Re: [PATCH] Add FMA4 support in binutils
  - From: Jan Beulich

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