RKSimon wrote: I think if we have an approach that allows people to emulate a very basic KNL/KNM implementation with the equivalent of "-march=x86-64-v3 -mavx512f -mavx512cd" then that would be sufficient. I do think we should be keeping -march/tune support though for the knl/knm cpu model names, but we shouldn't need to support the xeon phi specific ISAs.
We should keep asm handling for avx512er/avx512pf/etc but no need for attributes/intrinsics handling for them - if somebody needs to write assembly for them we shouldn't prevent it. We should retain -march=native detection if we can, but not mandatory. I also think we need a policy regarding what test coverage we need for various avx512 features (when should we assume avx512vl etc.) Does that sound OK? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75580 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
