RE: [PATCH v1 2/2] Support x86 ACE ISA

> From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 5:17 PM
> 
> 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)?
> 

I am ok with ace_v1 or acev1 in binutils since both are reasonable.

Thx,
Haochen