On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:55 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> Just say Intel Broadwell CPU. >>>>> > Done. Other options report instruction sets, so i left them. >>>>> > >>>>> > OK for trunk? >>>>> > >>>>> > 2013-12-19 Tocar Ilya <ilya.to...@intel.com> >>>>> > >>>>> > * config.gcc: Support march=broadwell. >>>>> > * config/i386/driver-i386.c (host_detect_local_cpu): Detect >>>>> > Broadwell. >>>>> > * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_option_override_internal): Add >>>>> > broadwell. >>>>> > * doc/invoke.texi: Document march=broadwell. >>>>> >>>>> OK for mainline. >>>> >>>> Perhaps we should add sandybridge, ivybridge and haswell aliases for >>> >>> Do we want to support Nehelam and Westmere? >> >> We already do in const arch_names_table[], so let's add them to >> processor alias table as well. > > Atom is also too vague. Bonnell: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnell_%28microarchitecture%29 > > is better. IIRC, Intel was against using project names, and this "recommendation" was lifted some time ago. So if you think that these names are of some benefits to users, I'm all for longer, more descriptive names that are easy to remember. >>>> corei7-avx, core-avx-i, core-avx2? I mean, it is a nightmare to remember >>>> which one has the i7 in and which doesn't even for me. >>>> >>> >>> Do we want the full names or just abbreviations? >> >> Full names please. >> > > Should we add Silvermont and make slm an alias? Yes. Can you also look at Allan's pending patch and synchronize function multiversioning names? Thanks, Uros.
