That make sense to me. Thx!
> -Original Message-
> From: Uros Bizjak
> Sent: Saturday, May 7, 2022 5:04 PM
> To: Jiang, Haochen
> Cc: Hongyu Wang ; Liu, Hongtao
> ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reconstruct i386 testsuite with __builtin_cpu_suppor
27;t we change everything to the same
> way?
Because we test the old and the new approach this way.
Uros.
> BRs,
> Haochen
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Uros Bizjak
> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 5:17 PM
> To: Hongyu Wang
> Cc: Jiang, Haochen ; Liu, Hongtao
> ;
Jiang, Haochen ; Liu, Hongtao
; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reconstruct i386 testsuite with __builtin_cpu_supports
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 11:00 AM Hongyu Wang wrote:
>
> > I don't think *_os_support calls should be removed. IIRC,
> > __builtin_cpu_supports funct
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 11:00 AM Hongyu Wang wrote:
>
> > I don't think *_os_support calls should be removed. IIRC,
> > __builtin_cpu_supports function checks if the feature is supported by
> > CPU, whereas *_os_supports calls check via xgetbv if OS supports
> > handling of new registers.
>
> avx_o
> I don't think *_os_support calls should be removed. IIRC,
> __builtin_cpu_supports function checks if the feature is supported by
> CPU, whereas *_os_supports calls check via xgetbv if OS supports
> handling of new registers.
avx_os_support is like
avx_os_support (void)
{
unsigned int eax, ed
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:57 AM Haochen Jiang wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> There are some check files in i386 testsuite are written before the function
> __builtin_cpu_supports is introduced. All of them are using
> __get_cpuid_count. This patch aims to reconstruct the i386 testsuite with
> __builtin_
