From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Dec 06 11:49:11 2021 Received: (at 52283) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Dec 2021 16:49:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35231 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1muHAj-0008Qj-Uh for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:49:11 -0500 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.104]:64976) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1muHAT-0008Q6-Mf for 52283@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:49:00 -0500 IronPort-HdrOrdr: =?us-ascii?q?A9a23=3AE+zjGawaipnmUNjNIVjSKrPwNb1zdoMgy1kn?= =?us-ascii?q?xilNoHtuH/Bw9vrFoB11737JYVoqM03I5+rvBEDwex/hHPdOiOEs1NyZMzUO1l?= =?us-ascii?q?HJEGgb1/qA/wHd?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,326,1620684000"; d="scan'208";a="400367926" Received: from unknown (HELO ribbon) ([193.50.110.120]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Dec 2021 17:48:39 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Mathieu Othacehe Subject: Re: bug#52283: [PATCH 00/10] Tuning packages for CPU micro-architectures References: <20211204203447.15200-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20211204204924.15581-1-ludo@gnu.org> <87czmb1m8a.fsf_-_@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2021 17:48:39 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87czmb1m8a.fsf_-_@gnu.org> (Mathieu Othacehe's message of "Sun, 05 Dec 2021 09:37:09 +0100") Message-ID: <87o85tllw8.fsf_-_@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 52283 Cc: 52283@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Mathieu Othacehe skribis: > However, when the user is passing a custom cpu name, it might be > incorrect. I think we should check the user input against a list of > valid/supported cpu architectures. BTW, there=E2=80=99s another constraint: the list of valid names depends on= the compiler used. GCC 11 recognizes =E2=80=98x86-64-v[1234]=E2=80=99 for inst= ance, but earlier versions do not. We could hard-code the list of known identifiers for the default GCC, but if users resort to =E2=80=98--with-c-toolchain=E2=80=99 to get a newer = toolchain, they won=E2=80=99t be able to use the newer CPU identifiers. Maybe an acceptable drawback. Ludo=E2=80=99.