Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] Support x86 ACE ISA
Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnu.binutils |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 30.06.2026 10:42, Jiang, Haochen wrote: >> From: Ganesh Gopalasubramanian <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2026 7:54 PM >> >> --- a/gas/config/tc-i386.c >> +++ b/gas/config/tc-i386.c >> @@ -1200,6 +1201,7 @@ static const arch_entry cpu_arch[] = >> SUBARCH (pconfig, PCONFIG, PCONFIG, false), >> SUBARCH (waitpkg, WAITPKG, WAITPKG, false), >> SUBARCH (cldemote, CLDEMOTE, CLDEMOTE, false), >> + SUBARCH (ace, ACE, ACE, false), >> SUBARCH (amx_int8, AMX_INT8, ANY_AMX_INT8, false), >> SUBARCH (amx_bf16, AMX_BF16, ANY_AMX_BF16, false), >> SUBARCH (amx_fp16, AMX_FP16, ANY_AMX_FP16, false), > > Should we call it as ACEV1 instead of ACE? Documentation mentioned > it as ACEv1. Perhaps. We have "avx10.1" and "avx10.2" as .arch specifiers as well. So perhaps "ace_v1" as counterpart ("acev1" being a little odd without separator)? >> --- a/opcodes/i386-gen.c >> +++ b/opcodes/i386-gen.c >> @@ -263,6 +263,8 @@ static const dependency isa_dependencies[] = >> "RTM|HLE" }, >> { "TSXLDTRK", >> "RTM" }, >> + { "ACE", >> + "AVX512F|64" }, > > I have different opinion on this implication. I suppose it should > directly use AVX10_V2_AUX according to documentation CPUID > emulation part. That part clearly showed AVX10_V2_AUX is a must. +1 Jan