Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Jan 23, 2023. It is now read-only.

Enable partially implemented Intel HW intrinsics ISAs - CoreCLR part of changes #17134

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Enable partially implemented Intel HW intrinsics ISAs - CoreCLR part of changes #17134

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
9 changes: 5 additions & 4 deletions src/jit/hwintrinsicxarch.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -540,27 +540,28 @@ GenTree* Compiler::addRangeCheckIfNeeded(NamedIntrinsic intrinsic, GenTree* last
// Arguments:
// isa - Instruction set
// Return Value:
// true - all the hardware intrinsics of "isa" are implemented in RyuJIT.
// true - all the hardware intrinsics of "isa" exposed in CoreFX
// System.Runtime.Intrinsics.Experimental assembly are implemented in RyuJIT.
Copy link

@fiigii fiigii Mar 23, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I do not think we need the new comment. JIT implementation is not related to corefx surface and the S.R.Intrinsic.Experimental package is a temporary solution.

Copy link
Author

@4creators 4creators Mar 23, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

S.R.Intrinsic.Experimental package is a temporary solution

Agree, however, function logic has changed and old description is wrong. Perhaps I will add TODO-XARCH-Cq to describe it and remember to update function and comment in future. I would expect that once we have all ISAs implemented we will not need this check and function anymore.

Copy link

@fiigii fiigii Mar 23, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we will not need this check and function anymore.

Not really, I think that we always need this logic for future work (e.g., AVX-512) even though the current ISA support gets completed.

Copy link
Author

@4creators 4creators Mar 23, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that we always need this logic for future work (e.g., AVX-512)

Yes, you are right, but only under the condition that we will follow implementation pattern where APIs are exposed first and implemented later.

//
bool Compiler::isFullyImplmentedISAClass(InstructionSet isa)
{
switch (isa)
{
case InstructionSet_SSE42:
case InstructionSet_AVX:
case InstructionSet_AVX2:
case InstructionSet_AES:
case InstructionSet_BMI1:
case InstructionSet_BMI2:
case InstructionSet_FMA:
case InstructionSet_PCLMULQDQ:
return false;

case InstructionSet_AVX:
case InstructionSet_AVX2:
case InstructionSet_SSE:
case InstructionSet_SSE2:
case InstructionSet_SSE3:
case InstructionSet_SSSE3:
case InstructionSet_SSE41:
case InstructionSet_SSE42:
case InstructionSet_LZCNT:
case InstructionSet_POPCNT:
return true;
Expand Down