Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update X86 feature and CPU detection #36502

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jul 8, 2020
Merged

Update X86 feature and CPU detection #36502

merged 5 commits into from
Jul 8, 2020

Conversation

yuyichao
Copy link
Contributor

@yuyichao yuyichao commented Jul 1, 2020

First three commits assumes LLVM >= 5.0
Last two commits assumes LLVM >= 7.0 (really 8.0 but nothing was needed from 8.0)

At least the first commit should be backported to all versions that supports LLVM 8.0 ref #35215 (comment)

src/processor_x86.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@yuyichao yuyichao force-pushed the yyc/x86 branch 2 times, most recently from f705012 to d38b6f7 Compare July 1, 2020 18:07
yuyichao added a commit to nacs-lab/libnacs that referenced this pull request Jul 2, 2020
yuyichao added a commit to archlinuxcn/repo that referenced this pull request Jul 3, 2020
@KristofferC KristofferC mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2020
13 tasks
@yuyichao yuyichao merged commit 576769a into master Jul 8, 2020
@yuyichao yuyichao deleted the yyc/x86 branch July 8, 2020 12:56
@KristofferC
Copy link
Sponsor Member

Based on

First three commits assumes LLVM >= 5.0
Last two commits assumes LLVM >= 7.0 (really 8.0 but nothing was needed from 8.0)

I assume all 5 commits should be backported to 1.5 (so I did that in #36577). You could take a look if you want to see that it looks reasonable, there was only one fairly trivial (hopefully) merge conflict.

@yuyichao
Copy link
Contributor Author

yuyichao commented Jul 8, 2020

All 5 should be safe, just that the latter 3 has a higher chance of mistake/introducing errors....

6fd5b82 seems to be missing? That's actually the only bugfix that should be backported even if others don't. That's probablly also the origin of the conflict.

@KristofferC
Copy link
Sponsor Member

6fd5b82 seems to be missing?

Hm, yes. So I did mess something up. Will fix it.

@KristofferC
Copy link
Sponsor Member

Added

@KristofferC
Copy link
Sponsor Member

I thought about it a bit and maybe it is better to just backport the bugfix commit since we are so late in the release cycle. I changed the backport branch to that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants