Re: [PATCH] x86: separate AVX10.1-aux from AVX10.2
"Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh" <[email protected]> Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:36:20 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnu.binutils |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <SA3PR12MB79984A824A394CAD4A93F46182CF2@SA3PR12MB7998.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> |
AMD General In clang and in GCC, we are using -mavx10v2aux. I would suggest using avx10v1aux! Regards Ganesh ________________________________ From: Jiang, Haochen <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 12:07 PM To: Beulich, Jan <[email protected]>; Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh <[email protected]> Cc: H.J. Lu <[email protected]>; Binutils <[email protected]>; Kumar, Venkataramanan <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86: separate AVX10.1-aux from AVX10.2 Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding. > From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 2:33 PM > > On 17.07.2026 08:31, Jiang, Haochen wrote: > >> From: Jiang, Haochen > >> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 4:50 PM > >> > >>> From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > >>> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 2:30 PM > >>> > >>> On 13.07.2026 04:20, Jiang, Haochen wrote: > >>>>> From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > >>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2026 8:23 PM > >>>>> > >>>>> --- a/gas/config/tc-i386.c > >>>>> +++ b/gas/config/tc-i386.c > >>>>> @@ -1247,13 +1247,14 @@ static const arch_entry cpu_arch[] = > >>>>> VECARCH (sm4, SM4, ANY_SM4, reset), > >>>>> SUBARCH (pbndkb, PBNDKB, PBNDKB, false), > >>>>> VECARCH (avx10.1, AVX10_1, ANY_AVX512F, set), > >>>>> + VECARCH (avx10.1aux, AVX10_1_AUX, ANY_AVX10_1_AUX, set), > >>>> > >>>> Maybe avx10_v1_aux instead of avx10.1aux to align with documentation? > >>> > >>> I was wondering, but imo the existing "avx10.1" makes it pretty clear cut. > >>> I would have wanted to make it "avx10.1-aux", but dashes aren't okay to use > >>> here, and "avx10.1_aux" feels somewhat odd. > >> > >> If we do not want to use v1, then the current name is definitely a win. > >> > >> This is an AMD proposed feature bit actually, while Intel will emulate that bit > >> to avoid break on HW. So, let's wait AMD folks to share their opinion on option > >> names. We also need to make sure that it is the same naming convention as > >> AVX10_V2_AUX. > > > > Ping for this discussion, Ganesh, what is AMD's opinion on this? Do you want > > to keep the "v" in name? Whatever it is, we need to keep the naming convention > > same between AVX10_V1_AUX and AVX10_V2_AUX. > > Short of further feedback I've put this in. We still have some time to massage > things, before the 2.48 release. > + Venkat from AMD for feedback. As long as we keep the same naming convention between AVX10_V1_AUX and AVX10_V2_AUX, it is ok to me. Thx, Haochen