On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 4:34 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 09:36:15AM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > I think internally we should have conditional 512bit support work across
> > AVX512 and AVX10.
> >
> > I also think it makes sense to _internally_ have AVX10.1 (10.1!) just
> > enable the respective AVX512 features. AVX10.2 would then internally
> > cover the ISA extensions added in 10.2 only. Both would reduce the
> > redundancy and possibly make providing inter-operation between
> > AVX10.1 (10.1!) and AVX512 to the user easier. I see AVX 10.1 (10.1!)
> > just as "re-branding" latest AVX512, so we should treat it that way
> > (making it an alias to the AVX512 features).
> >
> > Whether we want allow -mavx10.1 -mno-avx512cd or whether
> > we only allow the "positive" -mavx512f -mavx512... (omitting avx512cd)
> > is an entirely separate
> > question. But I think to not wreck the core idea (more interoperability,
> > here between small/big cores) we absolutely have to
> > provide a subset of avx10.1 but with disabled 512bit vectors which
> > effectively means AVX512 with disabled 512bit support.
>
> Agreed. And I still think -mevex512 vs. -mno-evex512 is the best option
> name to represent whether the effective ISA set allows 512-bit vectors or
> not. I think -mavx10.1 -mno-avx512cd should be fine. And, -mavx10.1-256
> option IMHO should be in the same spirit to all the others a positive
> enablement,
> not both positive (enable avx512{f,cd,bw,dq,...} and negative (disallow
> 512-bit vectors). So, if one uses -mavx512f -mavx10.1-256, because the
> former would allow 512-bit vectors, the latter shouldn't disable those again
> because it isn't a -mno-* option. Sure, instructions which are specific to
But there's implicit negative (disallow 512-bit vector), I think
-mav512f -mavx10.1-256 or -mavx10.1-256 -mavx512f shouldn't enable
512-bit vector.
Further, we should disallow a mix of exex512 and non-evex512 (e.g.
-mavx10.1-512 -mavx10.2-256),they should be a unified separate switch
that either disallows both or allows both. Instead of some isa
allowing it and some isa disallowing it.
> AVX10.1 (aren't present in any currently existing AVX512* ISA set) might be
> enabled only in 128/256 bit variants if we differentiate that level.
> But, if one uses -mavx2 -mavx10.1-256, because no AVX512* has been enabled
> it can enable all the AVX10.1 implied AVX512* parts without EVEX.512.
>
> Jakub
>
--
BR,
Hongtao
