On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Koval, Julia <julia.ko...@intel.com> wrote: >>> Maybe [] operator could be used instead of a dynamic handling here. > I had another solution in mind, with enums, which then addresses elements > using its index, please look the patch attached. > > >>>> The natural GCC data structure is a sbitmap ... I'd rather not use >>>> <bitset> given we have a GCC variant. > > Sorry for maybe stupid question, but how do we set > > bitmask pta_core2 = pta_64bit | pta_mmx | pta_sse | pta_sse2 > | pta_sse3 | pta_ssse3 | pta_cx16 | pta_fxsr; > > in sbitmap, except chain of bitmap_and_or with third bitmap set to ones(which > doesn't look fast)? > Sorry, I think there should be some obvious solution, but can't find a proper > function.
Chain of bitmap_set_bit () I'd say. Or are the pta_64bit and friends bitsets themselves? Richard. > Thanks, > Julia > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 12:56 PM >> To: Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> >> Cc: Koval, Julia <julia.ko...@intel.com>; GCC Patches <gcc- >> patc...@gcc.gnu.org>; Kirill Yukhin <kirill.yuk...@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [patch][x86] -march=icelake >> >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Koval, Julia <julia.ko...@intel.com> >> > wrote: >> >> Hi, I tried to replace 2 flags variable with c++ bitset(in patch >> >> attached). What >> do you think? >> > >> > Hm, I'm not a c++ person, but I wonder about overhead and performance >> > impact of this change. Maybe [] operator could be used instead of a >> > dynamic handling here. Please discuss with a c++ person to find out >> > the most appropriate approach. >> >> The natural GCC data structure is a sbitmap ... I'd rather not use <bitset> >> given we have a GCC variant. >> >> >>> Please add these options first. >> >> 2 options left(they are under Kirill's review currently), I'll add PTAs >> >> for them to >> the patch, as soon as they will be commited. >> > >> > Actually, let's wait for these 2 options to be reviewed and committed >> > first, and after that introduce -march=icelake handling. >> > >> > Uros.
