Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "gfni".
Did you mean:
gfn
2020 May 18
2
Use Galois field New Instructions (GFNI) to combine affine instructions
Hello everyone,
On the last couple of days, I have been experimenting with teaching LLVM how to combine a
set of affine instructions into an instruction that uses the GFNI [1] AVX512 extension,
especially GF2P8AFFINEQB [2]. While the general idea seems to work, I have some questions
about my current implementation (see below). FTR, I have named this transformation
AffineCombineExpr (ACE).
Let's first introduce the general idea, which is to transform code like th...
2020 May 18
2
Use Galois field New Instructions (GFNI) to combine affine instructions
On 5/18/20 8:24 PM, Craig Topper wrote:
> I can tell you that your avx512 issue is that v64i8 gfni instructions also
> require avx512bw to be enabled to make v64i8 a supported type. The C
> intrinsics handling in the front end know this rule. But since you
> generated your own intrinsics you bypassed that.
Indeed that's the issue... I was stick with what Intel announces here
(https...
2020 Jul 23
1
New x86-64 micro-architecture levels
...These names should _not_ be
descriptive, because any description invokes a wrong feeling of precision.
E.g. what Florian already mentioned: sse4 - does it imply 4.1 and 4.2, or
avx512: what of F, CD, ER, PF, VL, DQ, BW, IFMA, VBMI, 4VNNIW, 4FMAPS,
VPOPCNTDQ, VNNI, VBMI2, BITALG, VP2INTERSECT, GFNI, VPCLMULQDQ, VAES does
that one imply (rhethorical question, list shown just to make sillyness
explicit).
Regarding precision: I think we should rule out any mathematically correct
scheme, e.g. one in which every ISA subset gets an index and the directory
name contains a hexnumber constructed...
2020 Jul 21
7
New x86-64 micro-architecture levels
* Premachandra Mallappa:
> [AMD Public Use]
>
> Hi Floarian,
>
>> I'm including a proposal for the levels below. I use single letters for them, but I expect that the concrete implementation of this proposal will use
>> names like “x86-100”, “x86-101”, like in the glibc patch referenced above. (But we can discuss other approaches.)
>
> Personally I am not a big