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] Allow setting CpuVRex bit in .arch directive


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.


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