[PATCH] add bdver2 processor.

[Quentin Neill]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:55 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Quentin Neill
> <quentin.neill.gnu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:40 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Quentin Neill
>>> <quentin.neill.gnu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:45 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Quentin Neill
>>>>> <quentin.neill.gnu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> This patch adds the bdver2 processor flag.  It passes make check on x86-64.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay to commit?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Quentin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> gas/
>>>>>>        * config/tc-i386.c (cpu_arch): Add bdver2.
>>>>>>        (i386_align_code): Add PROCESSOR_BDVER2 cases.
>>>>>>        * config/tc-i386.h (processor_type): Add PROCESSOR_BDVER2.
>>>>>>        * doc/c-i386.texi: Add bdver2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> opcodes/
>>>>>>        * i386-gen.c (cpu_flag_init): Add new CPU_BDVER2_FLAGS.
>>>>>>        * i386-init.h: Regenerated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> gas/testsuite/
>>>>>>        * gas/i386/i386.exp: Add new bdver2 test cases.
>>>>>>        * gas/i386/nops-1-bdver2.d: New.
>>>>>>        * gas/i386/x86-64-nops-1-bdver2.d: New.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you nreally nned PROCESSOR_BDVER2? Can you use PROCESSOR_BDVER1? instead?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> H.J.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BDVER2 adds BMI and TBM.
>>>
>>> That is controlled by CPU_BDVER2_FLAGS.
>>>
>>
>> [ Sorry for the delay,  I was out for a couple of days.  Re-adding
>> binutils@sourceware.org (I meant to copy on my 2nd reply). ]
>>
>> So without PROCESSOR_BDVER2, that means no -march=bdver2 flag support,
>> but what else?
>>
>
> Can you replace PROCESSOR_BDVER2 with  PROCESSOR_BDVER1
> to see if it makes a difference?
>
Now I understand, I was thinking you meant remove "bdver2" flag as well.

Should I rename the PROCESSOR_BDVER1 variable to perhaps PROCESSOR_BDVER?
-- 
Quentin