On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 3:31 PM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > > On 10.08.2023 15:12, Phoebe Wang wrote: > >> The psABI should have some simple rule covering all of the above I think. > > > > psABI has a rule for the case doesn't mean the rule is a well defined ABI > > in practice. A well defined ABI should guarantee 1) interlinkable across > > different compile options within the same compiler; 2) interlinkable across > > different compilers. Both aspects are failed in the non 512-bit version. > > > > 1) is more important than 2) and becomes more critical on AVX10 targets. > > Because we expect AVX10-256 is a general setting for binaries that can run > > on both AVX10-256 and AVX10-512. It would be common that binaries compiled > > with AVX10-256 may link with native built binaries on AVX10-512 targets. > > But you're only describing a pre-existing problem here afaict. Code compiled > with -mavx51f passing __m512 type data to a function compiled with only, > say, -maxv2 won't interoperate properly either. What's worse, imo the psABI > doesn't sufficiently define what __m256 etc actually are. After all these > aren't types defined by the C standard (as opposed to at least most other > types in the respective table there), and you can't really make assumptions > like "this is what certain compilers think this is".
You might be able to speak in terms of OpenMP SIMD with simdlen? Richard. > Jan
