Hi! On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 09:45:29AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 6:39 PM Segher Boessenkool > <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 09:48:28AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > stage1 please? > > > > Versions of this patch were first submitted in August. Of 2019. > > > > We have quite a lot of experience with it so far. There are no known > > wrong-code (or ICE) problems with it. > > > > All of this is only when targetting power10 (which isn't shipping > > hardware yet), and is behind a flag anyway, so you can easily disable > > the optimisation. > > > > So, there is virtually no risk. > > So it's enabled by default when targeting power10?
Yes. > But power10 won't ship before the GCC 11 release? "second half of 2021" says <https://newsroom.ibm.com/2020-08-17-IBM-Reveals-Next-Generation-IBM-POWER10-Processor> The GCC release schedule is very much not harmonised with the POWER10 schedules :-/ > > On the other hand, we do want to get this into the hands of everyone > > who should test it, and trunk works so much better for that than private > > builds or patch sets. > > > > If it misses 11.1, we'll have to backport it to 11.2 . > > I see. > > > So, I'd really like it to get in now. Do any of these arguments change > > your position on that? > > Well, in the end target maintainers have the say on target specific > changes. I guess hitting problems with the patch in testing GCC 11 > is unlikely to happen, and if it does we won't block shipping 11.1. Thank you! If any real problems crop up, we can just change the default to off. > I do note that GCC 10 seems to know -mpower10 so technically > such "regression" would block a release. We'll not let that happen. Promise. Segher
