This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] add bdver2 processor.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Quentin Neill
<quentin.neill.gnu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:10 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Quentin Neill
>> <quentin.neill.gnu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:55 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Quentin Neill
>>>> <quentin.neill.gnu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:40 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Quentin Neill
>>>>>> <quentin.neill.gnu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:45 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Quentin Neill
>>>>>>>> <quentin.neill.gnu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This patch adds the bdver2 processor flag. ?It passes make check on x86-64.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Okay to commit?
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Quentin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> gas/
>>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ?* config/tc-i386.c (cpu_arch): Add bdver2.
>>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ?(i386_align_code): Add PROCESSOR_BDVER2 cases.
>>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ?* config/tc-i386.h (processor_type): Add PROCESSOR_BDVER2.
>>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ?* doc/c-i386.texi: Add bdver2.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> opcodes/
>>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ?* i386-gen.c (cpu_flag_init): Add new CPU_BDVER2_FLAGS.
>>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ?* i386-init.h: Regenerated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> gas/testsuite/
>>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ?* gas/i386/i386.exp: Add new bdver2 test cases.
>>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ?* gas/i386/nops-1-bdver2.d: New.
>>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ?* gas/i386/x86-64-nops-1-bdver2.d: New.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you nreally nned PROCESSOR_BDVER2? Can you use PROCESSOR_BDVER1? instead?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> H.J.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BDVER2 adds BMI and TBM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is controlled by CPU_BDVER2_FLAGS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ Sorry for the delay, ?I was out for a couple of days. ?Re-adding
>>>>> binutils@sourceware.org (I meant to copy on my 2nd reply). ]
>>>>>
>>>>> So without PROCESSOR_BDVER2, that means no -march=bdver2 flag support,
>>>>> but what else?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you replace PROCESSOR_BDVER2 with ?PROCESSOR_BDVER1
>>>> to see if it makes a difference?
>>>>
>>> Now I understand, I was thinking you meant remove "bdver2" flag as well.
>>>
>>> Should I rename the PROCESSOR_BDVER1 variable to perhaps PROCESSOR_BDVER?
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>
> Okay, the attached follows H.J.'s suggestions, and passes "make check"
> in x86-64.
>
> Okay to commit?
OK.
--
H.J.