On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 4:36 PM Hongtao Liu <crazy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 9:54 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 09:35:44PM +0800, Hongtao Liu wrote: > > > Ok, then we can't avoid TARGET_AVX10_1 in those existing 256/128-bit > > > evex instruction patterns. > > > > Why? > > Internally for md etc. purposes, we should have the current > > TARGET_AVX512* etc. ISA flags, plus one new one, whatever we call it > > (TARGET_EVEX512 even if it is not completely descriptive because of kandq > > etc., or some other name) which says if 512-bit vector modes can be used, > > if g modifier can be used, if the 64-bit mask operations can be used etc. > > Plus, if AVX10.1 contains any instructions not covered in the preexisting > > TARGET_AVX512* sets, TARGET_AVX10_1 which covers that delta, otherwise > > keep -mavx10.1 just as an command line option which enables/disables > Let's assume there's no detla now, AVX10.1-512 is equal to > AVX512{F,VL,BW,DQ,CD,BF16,FP16,VBMI,VBMI2,VNNI,IFMA,BITALG, VPOPCNTDQ} > > other stuff. > > The current common/config/i386/i386-common.cc OPTION_MASK_ISA*SET* would be > > like now, except that the current AVX512* sets imply also EVEX512/whatever > > it will be called, that option itself enables nothing (or TARGET_AVX512F), > > and unsetting it doesn't disable all the TARGET_AVX512*. > > -mavx10.1 would enable the AVX512* sets without EVEX512/whatever. > So for -mavx512bw -mavx10.1-256, -mavx512bw will set EVEX512, but > -mavx10.1-256 doesn't clear EVEX512 but just enable all AVX512* sets?.
As I said earlier -mavx10.1-256 (and -mavx10.1-512) should not exist. So instead we'd have -mavx512bw -mavx10.1 where -mavx512bw enables evex512 and -mavx10.1 will enable the 10.1 ISAs _not affecting_ whether evex512 is set or not. We then have the -mevex512 flag (or whatever name we agree to) to enable (or disable) 512bit support. If you insist on having -mavx10.1-256 that should alias to -mavx10.1 + -mno-evex512, but Jakub disagrees here, so I'd rather not have it at all. We could have -mavx10.1-512 aliasing to -mavx10.1 + -mevex512 (Jakub would agree here). Richard.