[LLVMdev] RFC: AVX Feature Specification
gohman at apple.com
Thu Apr 30 15:38:55 PDT 2009
On Apr 30, 2009, at 3:02 PM, David Greene wrote:
> I've been working on adding AVX to LLVM and have run across a number
> questions. Here's the first one.
> In some ways AVX is "just another" SSE level. Having AVX implies
> you have
> SSE1-SSE4.2. However AVX is very different from SSE and there are a
> of sub-features which may or may not be available on various
> So right now I've done this:
> def FeatureYMM : SubtargetFeature<"ymm", "X86YMM", "true", // Cray
> "Enable YMM state">;
> def FeatureVEX : SubtargetFeature<"vex", "X86VEX", "true", // Cray
> "Enable VEX prefix">;
> def FeatureFMA : SubtargetFeature<"fma", "X86FMA", "true", // Cray
> "Enable fused multiply-add">;
> def FeatureAVX : SubtargetFeature<"avx", "X86AVX", "true", // Cray
> "Enable AVX instructions",
> [FeatureSSE42, FeatureYMM,
> YMM, VEX and FMA are all separate features detectable through CPUID.
> The key question here is whether making X86AVX a boolean feature
> flag separate
> from X86SSELevel is reasonable.
It sounds reasonable to me.
> As I've been going along I've added feature flags for SSE4a and
> SSE5. These
> really do need to be separate feature flags because having SSE4a and/
> or SSE5
> does not imply that you have SSE4.2 or SSE4.1. So they can't be
> part of the
> X86SSELevel scheme.
> Opinions on whether AVX should be a separate flag or an SSELevel are
> Perhaps we need to retink the whole SSELevel scheme now that AMD and
> Intel are
> diverging. My prediction is that AMD will dump SSE5 and go with AVX
> eventually, similarly to what happened with 3dNow. AVX is simply far
> techincally superior.
I think it's reasonable to use separate flags for the AVX features.
If there's ever any code that needs to test whether the target has
both AVX and a particular SSE level at the same time, the code
will just have to check both conditions.
Offhand, I'd say SSE4a and SSE5 ought to be separate flags too.
More information about the llvm-dev