On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:14:45PM +0300, Kirill Yukhin wrote: >> Hello, >> This patch introduces switches necessary for new Intel Server CPU >> (code-named Skylake). >> >> Bootstrapped & regtested. >> >> Is it ok for trunk? >> >> gcc/ >> * config.gcc: Support "skx". >> * config/i386/i386-c.c (ix86_target_macros_internal): Handle >> PROCESSOR_SKX. >> * config/i386/i386.c (m_SKX): Define. >> (processor_target_table): Add "skx". >> (PTA_SKX): Define. >> (ix86_option_override_internal): Add "skx". >> (fold_builtin_cpu): Handle "skx". >> * config/i386/i386.h (TARGET_SKX): Define. >> (processor_type): Add PROCESSOR_SKX. >> * config/i386/i386.md (attr "cpu"): Add knl. >> * config/i386/x86-tune.def: Add m_KNL. >> >> gcc/testsuite/ >> * gcc.target/i386/funcspec-5.c: Test avx512vl, avx512bw, >> avx512dq, avx512cd, avx512er, avx512pf and skx. > > Is it a good idea to introduce further abbrevs like this? > I thought we went away from e.g. slm to silvermont, we didn't > introduce hsw but haswell, etc. > So, wouldn't it be better to add skylake-xeon instead of skx?
Those "short names" were invented due to some restrictions/recommendations on the usage of internal project names. These restrictions were lifted years ago, so we are free to add more descriptive names. As Jakub suggested, "skylake-xeon" is IMO much better. Uros.
