| Message ID | 20150310191956.GK1746@tucnak.redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote: > This patch documents knl. The PR is asking for also documenting > slm, but I believe those were intentionally removed from the documentation > as deprecated aliases, at least that is my reading of the > 2013-12-23 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> > Tocar Ilya <ilya.tocar@intel.com> > ... > * doc/invoke.texi: Replace corei7, corei7-avx, core-avx-i, > core-avx2, atom, slm with nehalem, sandybridge, ivybridge, > haswell, bonnel, silvermont. Add westmere. > change, so I think documenting knl is all we want right now. > Or should we use knightslanding and make knl an undocumented alias? H.J., any preferences here? I think that knightslanding is just too long (and two words), so I'd prefer knl. > 2015-03-10 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> > > PR target/65222 > * doc/invoke.texi: Add knl as x86 -march=/-mtune= CPU type. Let's wait for HJ, the patch is otherwise OK and safe for mainline. Thanks, Uros.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote: > >> This patch documents knl. The PR is asking for also documenting >> slm, but I believe those were intentionally removed from the documentation >> as deprecated aliases, at least that is my reading of the >> 2013-12-23 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> >> Tocar Ilya <ilya.tocar@intel.com> >> ... >> * doc/invoke.texi: Replace corei7, corei7-avx, core-avx-i, >> core-avx2, atom, slm with nehalem, sandybridge, ivybridge, >> haswell, bonnel, silvermont. Add westmere. >> change, so I think documenting knl is all we want right now. >> Or should we use knightslanding and make knl an undocumented alias? > > H.J., any preferences here? I think that knightslanding is just too > long (and two words), so I'd prefer knl. > >> 2015-03-10 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> >> >> PR target/65222 >> * doc/invoke.texi: Add knl as x86 -march=/-mtune= CPU type. > > Let's wait for HJ, the patch is otherwise OK and safe for mainline. > It is fine with me. Thanks.
--- gcc/doc/invoke.texi.jj 2015-03-10 11:26:42.000000000 +0100 +++ gcc/doc/invoke.texi 2015-03-10 18:20:03.350334993 +0100 @@ -21977,6 +21977,12 @@ instruction set support. Intel Silvermont CPU with 64-bit extensions, MOVBE, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, POPCNT, AES, PCLMUL and RDRND instruction set support. +@item knl +Intel Knight's Landing CPU with 64-bit extensions, MOVBE, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, +SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, POPCNT, AVX, AVX2, AES, PCLMUL, FSGSBASE, RDRND, FMA, +BMI, BMI2, F16C, RDSEED, ADCX, PREFETCHW, AVX512F, AVX512PF, AVX512ER and +AVX512CD instruction set support. + @item k6 AMD K6 CPU with MMX instruction set support.
Hi! This patch documents knl. The PR is asking for also documenting slm, but I believe those were intentionally removed from the documentation as deprecated aliases, at least that is my reading of the 2013-12-23 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> Tocar Ilya <ilya.tocar@intel.com> ... * doc/invoke.texi: Replace corei7, corei7-avx, core-avx-i, core-avx2, atom, slm with nehalem, sandybridge, ivybridge, haswell, bonnel, silvermont. Add westmere. change, so I think documenting knl is all we want right now. Or should we use knightslanding and make knl an undocumented alias? 2015-03-10 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> PR target/65222 * doc/invoke.texi: Add knl as x86 -march=/-mtune= CPU type. Jakub