On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:52 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> Hi H.J.,
>>
>> I am attaching a patch to add __cpu_indicator_init to the list of
>> symbols to be versioned and exported in libgcc_s.so. Also, updating
>> builtin_target.c test to explicitly
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Hi H.J.,
>
> I am attaching a patch to add __cpu_indicator_init to the list of
> symbols to be versioned and exported in libgcc_s.so. Also, updating
> builtin_target.c test to explicitly do a CPUID and check if the
> features are identified
Hi H.J.,
I am attaching a patch to add __cpu_indicator_init to the list of
symbols to be versioned and exported in libgcc_s.so. Also, updating
builtin_target.c test to explicitly do a CPUID and check if the
features are identified correctly like you had suggested earlier.
Patch ok?
* co
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, H.J. Lu wrote:
You can download an AVX2 emulator (SDE) from
http://software.intel.com/en-us/avx/
to test AVX2 binaries.
Hello,
not related to this specific patch, but do you have a dejagnu board
description that you could share that enables running the compiler
normal
Patch committed.
Thanks,
-Sri.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> Hi H.J,
>>
>> Could you please review this patch for AVX2 check?
>>
>> * config/i386/i386-cpuinfo.c (FEATURE_AVX2): New enum value.
>> (get
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Hi H.J,
>
> Could you please review this patch for AVX2 check?
>
> * config/i386/i386-cpuinfo.c (FEATURE_AVX2): New enum value.
> (get_available_features): New argument. Check for AVX2.
> (__cpu_indicator_init): Modif
Hi H.J,
Could you please review this patch for AVX2 check?
* config/i386/i386-cpuinfo.c (FEATURE_AVX2): New enum value.
(get_available_features): New argument. Check for AVX2.
(__cpu_indicator_init): Modify call to get_available_features
.
* doc/extend.texi: Doc
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:39 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Sriraman Tallam
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:39 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Sriraman Tallam
wrote:
> Hi,
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:39 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Sriraman Tallam
>>> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for all the comments. I have made all the cha
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for all the comments. I have made all the changes as
>>> mentioned and submiited the patch. Summary of cha
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for all the comments. I have made all the changes as
>> mentioned and submiited the patch. Summary of changes made:
>>
>> * Add support for AVX
>> * Fix documentation in
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for all the comments. I have made all the changes as
> mentioned and submiited the patch. Summary of changes made:
>
> * Add support for AVX
> * Fix documentation in extend.texi
> * Make it thread-safe according to H.J.'s c
Hi,
Thanks for all the comments. I have made all the changes as
mentioned and submiited the patch. Summary of changes made:
* Add support for AVX
* Fix documentation in extend.texi
* Make it thread-safe according to H.J.'s comments.
I have attached the patch. Boot-strapped and checked for tes
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>
> i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
Has the community reached the consensus on how this kind of
func
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>
i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
>>>
>>> Has the community reached the consensus on how this kind of
>>> functionality has to be implemented? I have followed the discussion a
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>
>>> i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
>>
>> Has the community reached the consensus on how this kind of
>> functi
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> * config/i386/i386.c (build_processor_features_struct): New function.
> (build_processor_model_struct): New function.
> (make_var_decl): New function.
> (get_field_from_struct): New function.
> (fold_builtin_t
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>> i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
>>
>> Has the community reached the consensus on how this kind of
>> functionality has to be implemented? I have followed the discussion a
>> bit, but IIRC, there was no clear decision. Without this
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>
>> i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
>
> Has the community reached the consensus on how this kind of
> functionality has to be implemented? I have followed the discussion a
> bit, bu
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>
>> i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
>
> Has the community reached the consensus on how this kind of
> functionality has to be implemented? I have followed the discussion a
> bi
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
Has the community reached the consensus on how this kind of
functionality has to be implemented? I have followed the discussion a
bit, but IIRC, there was no clear decision. Without this decision, I
am
Ping.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Sri.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:3
Ping.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
>
> Thanks,
> -Sri.
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Srirama
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have made a new patch to only have two builtins :
>>
>> * __builtin_cpu_is ("")
>> * __builtin_cpu_supports ("")
>>
>> apart from the cpu init builtin, __builtin_cpu_init.
>
> I d
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have made a new patch to only have two builtins :
>
> * __builtin_cpu_is ("")
> * __builtin_cpu_supports ("")
>
> apart from the cpu init builtin, __builtin_cpu_init.
I don't see any .texi file as part of this change. Shouldn't this
b
Hi,
i386 maintainers - Is this patch ok?
Thanks,
-Sri.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>>
+struct __processor_model
+{
+ /* Vendor. */
>
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>>
+struct __processor_model
+{
+ /* Vendor. */
>
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>
>>> +struct __processor_model
>>> +{
>>> + /* Vendor. */
>>> + unsigned int __cpu_is_amd : 1;
>>> + unsigned int __cpu_is_i
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>
>> +struct __processor_model
>> +{
>> + /* Vendor. */
>> + unsigned int __cpu_is_amd : 1;
>> + unsigned int __cpu_is_intel : 1;
>> + /* CPU type. */
>> + unsigned int __cpu_is_intel_at
Hi,
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> +struct __processor_model
> +{
> + /* Vendor. */
> + unsigned int __cpu_is_amd : 1;
> + unsigned int __cpu_is_intel : 1;
> + /* CPU type. */
> + unsigned int __cpu_is_intel_atom : 1;
> + unsigned int __cpu_is_intel_core2 : 1;
> + unsigned i
Subject:Support for Runtime CPU type detection via builtins
Hi,
I have uploaded a new patch to only have two builtins :
* __builtin_cpu_is ("")
* __builtin_cpu_supports ("")
apart from the cpu init builtin, __builtin_cpu_init.
List of CPU names :
* "amd"
* "intel"
* "atom"
* "core2"
* "cor
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>> Patch for CPU detection at run-time.
>>> ===
>>>
>>> Patch for CPU detection at run-t
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>> Patch for CPU detection at run-time.
>> ===
>>
>> Patch for CPU detection at run-time, to be used in dispatching of
>> multi-versioned functions. P
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Patch for CPU detection at run-time.
> ===
>
> Patch for CPU detection at run-time, to be used in dispatching of
> multi-versioned functions. Please see this discussion:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2
36 matches
Mail list logo
