Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "retink".
Did you mean:
rethink
2009 Apr 30
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: AVX Feature Specification
...E4a 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 welcome.
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.
-Dave
2009 Apr 30
0
[LLVMdev] RFC: AVX Feature Specification
...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
> welcome.
> 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...