On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 4:36 PM Iain Sandoe <idsan...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 14 Oct 2022, at 09:30, Hongtao Liu <crazy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 4:24 PM Iain Sandoe <idsan...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 14 Oct 2022, at 09:20, Hongtao Liu <crazy...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 4:14 PM Iain Sandoe via Gcc-patches > >>> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Haochen > >>>> > >>>>> On 14 Oct 2022, at 08:54, Haochen Jiang via Gcc-patches > >>>>> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>> These six patches aimed to add Intel Sierra Forest instructions, > >>>>> including > >>>>> AVX-IFMA, AVX-VNNI0INT8, AVX-NE-CONVERT, CMPccXADD. We also added > >>>>> intrinsic > >>>>> for vector __bf16 in this series of patch and Sierra Forest Support. > >>>>> > >>>>> The information is based on newly released > >>>>> Intel Architecture Instruction Set Extensions and Future Features. > >>>>> > >>>>> The document comes following: > >>>>> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/develop/download/intel-architecture-instruction-set-extensions-programming-reference.html > >>>>> > >>>>> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk? > >>>> > >>>> Have you tested that the testcases work on older platforms that do not > >>>> have support > >>>> for the new instructions in their assemblers? > >>>> > >>>> I could not see any target-requires changes in the testcases .. hence my > >>>> question. > >>>> > >>> Guess you are looking at compile tests? > >> > >> yes, compile tests would need support from the assembler. > > oops, not enough coffee - I’m talking rubbish here - assembler output should > be fine, > > >>> For runtime test, we have add assembler check(target-requires changed) > >>> plus runtime check(builtin_cpu_supports) > >>> .i.e. > >>> > >>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx-ifma-vpmaddhuq-2.c > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@ > >>> +/* { dg-do run } */ > >>> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mavxifma" } */ > >>> +/* { dg-require-effective-target avxifma } */ > >>> > >>> Do I miss some? > >> > >> I would need to look at the sources after patching (perhaps they already > >> have > >> suitable target-requires that did not show up in the patch). > >> > >> Do you have this series as a branch somewhere that I can try on one of the > >> like affected platforms? > > > > Not yet. > > Do we have any external place to put those patches so folks from the > > community can validate before it's committed, HJ? > > I’d still like to be able to test if that can be done - I’ve already got a > large number of > fails from new testcases in earlier additions. I've upstream those patches to public https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/tree/users/intel/liuhongt/upstream Also if you're intereted in Binutils patches, it's in https://gitlab.com/x86-binutils/binutils-gdb/-/tree/users/intel/liuhongt/upstream > > Iain
-- BR, Hongtao
