Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] docs: add a table showing x86-64 ABI compatibility levels

[Florian Weimer]

* Daniel P. Berrangé:

> and supported by GCC, CLang, GLibC and more.

Clang and glibc are the official spellings, I think.

> diff --git a/docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv 
> b/docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..4565e6a535
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv

> +Icelake-Client,✅,✅,✅,
> +Icelake-Client-noTSX,✅,✅,✅,
> +Icelake-Client-v1,✅,✅,✅,
> +Icelake-Client-v2,✅,✅,✅,

Icelake Client supports x86-64-v4 according to Intel ARK and a quick
test on a reference system.  Have you defined it differently in QEMU?

> +KnightsMill,✅,✅,✅,
> +KnightsMill-v1,✅,✅,✅,

This one is correct.  Even though Knights Mill supports AVX-512, it does
not cover the variants that are considered definitive for x86-64-v4.

> +Skylake-Server,✅,✅,✅,✅
> +Skylake-Server-IBRS,✅,✅,✅,✅
> +Skylake-Server-noTSX-IBRS,✅,✅,✅,✅
> +Skylake-Server-v1,✅,✅,✅,✅
> +Skylake-Server-v2,✅,✅,✅,✅
> +Skylake-Server-v3,✅,✅,✅,✅
> +Skylake-Server-v4,✅,✅,✅,✅

This one is a little bit odd.  Skylake Xeons which are not Xeon Scalable
Processors exist, and they do not support x86-64-v4.  Is this again a
matter of different naming in QEMU?

Thanks,
Florian
-- 
Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill