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

Reply via email to