> On 20 Oct 2022, at 10:09, Hongtao Liu via Gcc-patches
> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 9:11 AM Hongtao Liu <crazy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:09 PM Iain Sandoe <idsan...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Hongtao
>>>
>>>> On 17 Oct 2022, at 02:56, Hongtao Liu <crazy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 9:30 AM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
>>>> <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17 October 2022 03:02:22 CEST, Hongtao Liu via Gcc-patches
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/gitwrite.html#vendor
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure where in cgit the user branches are visible, though? But they
>>>>> can certainly be cloned and worked with.
>>>> Thanks for the reminder, I've pushed to remotes/vendors/ix86/ise046.
>>>> * [new ref] refs/vendors/ix86/heads/ise046 ->
>>>> vendors/ix86/ise046
>>>
>>> thanks for pushing this branch, much better to test these things before
>>> committing rather than a panic
>>> to fix after…
>>>
>>>
>>> with
>>> f90df941532 (HEAD -> ise046, vendors/ix86/ise046) Add m_CORE_ATOM for atom
>>> cores
>>>
>>> - on x86_64 Darwin19 I get the following bootstrap fail:
>>>
>>> In file included from
>>> /src-local/gcc-master/gcc/config/i386/driver-i386.cc:31:
>>> /src-local/gcc-master/gcc/common/config/i386/cpuinfo.h: In function ‘const
>>> char* get_intel_cpu(__processor_model*, __processor_model2*, unsigned
>>> int*)’:
>>> /src-local/gcc-master/gcc/common/config/i386/cpuinfo.h:532:32: error: this
>>> statement may fall through [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=]
>>> 532 | cpu_model->__cpu_subtype = INTEL_COREI7_GRANITERAPIDS;
>>> | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> /src-local/gcc-master/gcc/common/config/i386/cpuinfo.h:533:5: note: here
>>> 533 | case 0xb6:
>>> | ^~~~
>>> cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors
>>>
>>> ====
>>> Will try to look later, if that does not immediately ring some bell.
>> This should a bug, thanks!
> I've updated the branch, please try that.
I had made the same fix locally (adding the “break”, right?) and testing is
ongoing
it would not be surprising if some tests failed (asm matches for different ABIs
are rarely
identical) - a few tests to be fixed in stage 3 is fine ...
... but what I wanted to avoid was the case like the bf16 changes where every
single new test fails (I have a draft patch to fix the bf16 stuff to be posted
soon).
thanks
Iain
