On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:35 AM H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:27 AM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 5/26/20 1:59 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 2:30 AM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 5/25/20 7:42 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > >>> Here is the updated patch. OK for master?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thank you for the updated patch.
> > > >>
> > > >> I have still few nits:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1) I would make all the:
> > > >>
> > > >>> + has_sse3 = has_feature (FEATURE_SSE3);
> > > >>
> > > >> a macro. The local variable seems to superfluous.
> > > >
> > > > Done.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> 2) can we automatically deduce option name:
> > > >>
> > > >>> + ISA_NAMES_TABLE_ENTRY("rdpid", FEATURE_RDPID, P_ZERO, "-mrdpid")
> > > >>> + ISA_NAMES_TABLE_ENTRY("rdrnd", FEATURE_RDRND, P_ZERO, "-mrdrnd")
> > > >>
> > > >> I mean "-m" + "rdrnd" == "-mrdrnd" ?
> > > >
> > > > The new option field serves 2 purposes:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Not all features have a corresponding command-line option
> > > >
> > > > ISA_NAMES_TABLE_ENTRY("cmov", FEATURE_CMOV, P_ZERO, NULL)
> > > >
> > > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE (isa_names_table); i++)
> > > > if (isa_names_table[i].option)
> > > >
> > > > 2. Some feature has a different name in the command-line option.
> > > >
> > > > ISA_NAMES_TABLE_ENTRY("fxsave", FEATURE_FXSAVE, P_ZERO, "-mfxsr")
> > >
> > > I noticed that, one can theoretically use "" for an option that does not
> > > have a flag. And NULL for these which have option equal to "-m" + name.
> > > Anyway, that's a nit.
> > >
> > > I support the patch!
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Here is the updated patch. OK for master?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > PING:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/546522.html
> >
>
> PING.
Hi,
We have patches like
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/2020-June/705851.html
queued up because of this prerequisite patch. Are there any objections
to this patch?
--
H.J.
