On Sat, 2019-05-25 at 10:35 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
On 25/5/19 10:17 am, Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public wrote:
Hello,
Currently there are no guidelines stating which x86 extensions (ex. SSE2, SEE3, SSE4, AVX, etc.) we support. This is a bit problematic since it lets compilers do what they want and possible generate code that can't run on some systems.
Even though this is an issue, it's not complete anarchy, at least yet! Just kidding :p. The vast majority of our native packages are compiled with GCC and we do default to `-mtune=generic` which is good but not optimal. `-mtune=generic` tells GCC to compile for a generic processor so it's up to GCC to decide which architecture extensions would compose a generic processor. I haven't been able to find any documentation on what x86 extensions are enabled for a "generic" processor but I was able to track them down to MMX, SSE (or KNI) and SSE2. Being undocumented they could change at any time so I don't think we should rely on `-mtune=generic`.
I think you need to look at the difference between -march and -mtune. We use "-march=x86-64", which defines the instruction sets that can be used. Adding "-mtune=generic" does not allow the inclusion of additional instruction sets.
Look at the output of: gcc -march=x86-64 -Q --help=target
Allan
Yes! My bad. I got confused. From the `-march=x86_64` documentation: A generic CPU with 64-bit extensions. Setting `-mtune` to generic won't add any additional instruction sets by itself, but it does not prevent instruction sets from being added. Looks like GCC enables MMX, SSE and SSE2 by default, it isn't related at all to `-march` like I stated in the email but it still presents the same issue. What do you think? Filipe Laíns 3DCE 51D6 0930 EBA4 7858 BA41 46F6 33CB B0EB 4BF2