> > On the other hand, a new EVEX-capable level might bring earlier adoption > > of EVEX capabilities to AMD CPUs, which still should be an improvement > > over AVX2. This could benefit AMD as well. So I would really like to > > see some AMD feedback here. > > > > There's also the matter that time scales for EVEX adoption are so long > > that by then, Intel CPUs may end up supporting and preferring 512 bit > > vectors again. > > True, there isn't even widespread VEX adoption yet ... and now there's > APX as the next best thing to target. > > That said, my main point was that x86-64-v4 is "broken" as it appears > as a dead end - AVX512 is no more, the future is AVX10, but yet we have > to define x86-64-v5 as something that includes x86-64-v4. > > So, can we un-do x86-64-v4?
As far as I have heard, x86-64-v4 is rarely used. There should be a small chance to un-do that and not to break too many things. But I am not sure. Thx, Haochen > > Richard. > > > Thanks, > > Florian > >
