[PATCH] D63628: AMD K10 (Barcelona) Initial Scheduler model

[Andrea Di Biagio via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

andreadb added a comment.

In D63628#1555289 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63628#1555289>, @lebedev.ri wrote:

> In D63628#1555278 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63628#1555278>, @RKSimon wrote:
>
> > Rather pedantic, but shouldn't the model be called K10 or Fam10 instead of Barcelona, which was just one of the chips in the series?
>
>
> I'm not sure, actually.
>
> This seemed more consistent, because e.g. there are `-mcpu=bdver[1-4]`,
>  with `bd` being `bulldozer` which was the first chip in the `15h` series.
>  Those aren't `-mcpu=k15ver[1-4]`, and not `-mcpu={bulldozer,piledriver,steamroller,excavator}`,
>  and following the consistency logic that is already inconsistent, and latter would be
>  even more confusing since `bulldozer` would then refer both to the `15h` series
>  and just a single model in the series, with all other models being different.
>
> This isn't the case here, there is no `-mcpu=k10ver2`;
>  `-mcpu=fam10h` and `-mcpu=barcelona` are synonyms in `X86.td`
>  (i don't know if latter chips actually *should* be separate)
>
> So i'm not sure, i can totally rename, but **TO ME** the current scheme follows preexisting pattern.


Out of curiosity:
GCC uses `amdfam10` as CPU name for flags `-march` and `-mtune`.

I am not suggesting that we should pedantically follow gcc's naming convention.
So far, our cpu names for AMD processors have always matched gcc names. Not sure if that was done intentionally though.
I tend to agree with Simon that k10, or amdfam10(h) is probably a better name. However I don't have a strong opinion about it.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D63628/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63628