On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 4:15 PM Wei Xiao wrote:
>
> Thanks for the comments!
> Fixed as attached.
> Ok for trunk?
OK.
Thanks,
Uros.
> Jakub Jelinek 于2018年12月14日周五 下午6:47写道：
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 06:33:37PM +0800, Wei Xiao wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/config/i386/driver-i386.c
> > +++ b/gcc/c
Thanks for the comments!
Fixed as attached.
Ok for trunk?
Jakub Jelinek 于2018年12月14日周五 下午6:47写道：
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 06:33:37PM +0800, Wei Xiao wrote:
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/driver-i386.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/driver-i386.c
> @@ -832,8 +832,16 @@ const char *host_detect_local_cpu (int a
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 06:33:37PM +0800, Wei Xiao wrote:
--- a/gcc/config/i386/driver-i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/driver-i386.c
@@ -832,8 +832,16 @@ const char *host_detect_local_cpu (int argc, const char
**argv)
cpu = "skylake";
break;
case 0x55:
- /* Skylake
The part 2 is implemented by attached patch.
Ok for trunk?
Wei
gcc/
* config/i386/driver-i386.c (host_detect_local_cpu): Detect cascadelake.
* config/i386/i386.c (fold_builtin_cpu): Handle cascadelake.
* doc/extend.texi: Add cascadelake.
gcc/testsuite/
* g++.target/i3
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:48 AM Wei Xiao wrote:
>
> Hi Uros and other reviewers,
>
> I'd like to split the work into 2 parts:
> 1) Basic processor enabling.
> 2) Processor type dynamic check.
>
> Let's use a separate patch to implement the part 2.
> The part 1 is implemented by attached patch.
>
Hi Uros and other reviewers,
I'd like to split the work into 2 parts:
1) Basic processor enabling.
2) Processor type dynamic check.
Let's use a separate patch to implement the part 2.
The part 1 is implemented by attached patch.
Is it ok for trunk?
Wei
gcc/
* common/config/i386/i386-commo
Hi
Distinguish based on stepping number is not recommended for some reasons:
1) Intel doesn't officially disclose stepping information in SDM.
2) Stepping can be changing in the future.
We still prefer the conventional distinguish approach based on feature bits.
I have refined the patch as attach
Thanks for the helpful information!
But I'm still checking with hardware team about the
family/model/stepping numbers for Cascadelake which are not officially
disclosed by Intel (to my best knowledge).
Wei
Martin Liška 于2018年11月26日周一 下午10:00写道：
>
> On 11/26/18 12:18 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > O
On 11/26/18 12:18 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:03:53PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> For Cascade Lake the model number is the same as Skylake Server,
>>> it can only be distinguished based on the stepping (5 vs 4)
>>
>> Very interesting, probably the first time a distingui
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:03:53PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> > For Cascade Lake the model number is the same as Skylake Server,
> > it can only be distinguished based on the stepping (5 vs 4)
>
> Very interesting, probably the first time a distinguish is based on stepping
> number?
Wouldn't
On 11/24/18 12:34 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Uros Bizjak writes:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:48 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/22/18 8:07 AM, Wei Xiao wrote:
Jakub,
Thanks for the comments!
I have addressed them as attached.
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> Can you please add the n
Uros Bizjak writes:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:48 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> On 11/22/18 8:07 AM, Wei Xiao wrote:
>> > Jakub,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the comments!
>> > I have addressed them as attached.
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> Can you please add the new march into:
>>
>> - gcc/doc/extend.texi:20530
>>
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 1:03 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > Thanks for the comments!
> > > I have addressed them as attached.
> >
> > Hi.
> >
> > Can you please add the new march into:
> >
> > - gcc/doc/extend.texi:20530
> > - gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/builtin_target.c - test it here
>
> IIRC, f
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:48 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 11/22/18 8:07 AM, Wei Xiao wrote:
> > Jakub,
> >
> > Thanks for the comments!
> > I have addressed them as attached.
>
> Hi.
>
> Can you please add the new march into:
>
> - gcc/doc/extend.texi:20530
> - gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/buil
On 11/22/18 8:07 AM, Wei Xiao wrote:
> Jakub,
>
> Thanks for the comments!
> I have addressed them as attached.
Hi.
Can you please add the new march into:
- gcc/doc/extend.texi:20530
- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/builtin_target.c - test it here
Thanks,
Martin
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 8:08 AM Wei Xiao wrote:
>
> Jakub,
>
> Thanks for the comments!
> I have addressed them as attached.
>
> Wei
>
> gcc/
> * common/config/i386/i386-common.c (processor_names): Add cascadelake.
> (processor_alias_table): Add cascadelake.
> * config.
Jakub,
Thanks for the comments!
I have addressed them as attached.
Wei
gcc/
* common/config/i386/i386-common.c (processor_names): Add cascadelake.
(processor_alias_table): Add cascadelake.
* config.gcc: Add -march=cascadelake.
* config/i386/driver-i386.c
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 06:23:41PM +0800, Wei Xiao wrote:
> The attached patch added -march=cascadelake for x86.
> Tested with bootstrap and regression tests on x86_64. No regressions.
> Is it ok for trunk?
Not a real review, just nits:
index bff4dfb..f7c1c98 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/
Hi,
The attached patch added -march=cascadelake for x86.
Tested with bootstrap and regression tests on x86_64. No regressions.
Is it ok for trunk?
Wei
gcc/
* common/config/i386/i386-common.c (processor_names): Add cascadelake.
(processor_alias_table): Add cascadelake.
19 matches
Mail list logo
