Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Resolve libcall relocations for older CPUs #5567
Resolve libcall relocations for older CPUs #5567
Changes from 1 commit
424d3b2
90443a3
6c53b45
47e59f4
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Even after reading the above comment several times I still had a hard time figuring out that these calls to
arbitrary()
can't be moved into the loop.How about something like this to avoid having to keep two lists of feature names in sync, and hopefully make it less tempting to inline the variables into the loop?
Also, I think this is okay, but just to check: Each of these features implies the previous one (e.g. if you have SSE4.2 you also have SSE4.1). Is it okay to turn some off without turning off later ones?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
While I'm not 100% certain myself I believe that this question is up to Cranelift mostly. I believe Cranelift is mostly structured around "if this feature is active emit this instr" while it doesn't make sense to disable sse3 but leave sse4.1 enabled I don't think it will break anything since it would be a sort of "chaos mode" for cranelift stressing it.
If this becomes a problem for Cranelift, however, we can tweak the fuzz input to respect what the actual CPU feature hierarchy is.