On 11/8/24 1:56 PM, Michael Meissner wrote: > This patch adds the support that can be used in developing GCC support for > future PowerPC processors.
We used to have support for -mcpu=future. Unfortunately when we added Power10 support, rather than adding new support for the -mcpu=power10 option, we renamed all of future -> power10, removing the -mcpu=future option in the process. I think that was a mistake. I think we should always have a -mcpu=future option, so I'm happy to see this come back. > --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc > +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc > @@ -440,6 +440,8 @@ rs6000_target_modify_macros (bool define_p, HOST_WIDE_INT > flags, > rs6000_define_or_undefine_macro (define_p, "_ARCH_PWR10"); > if ((arch_flags & ARCH_MASK_POWER11) != 0) > rs6000_define_or_undefine_macro (define_p, "_ARCH_PWR11"); > + if ((arch_flags & ARCH_MASK_FUTURE) != 0) > + rs6000_define_or_undefine_macro (define_p, "_ARCH_FUTURE"); > if ((flags & OPTION_MASK_SOFT_FLOAT) != 0) > rs6000_define_or_undefine_macro (define_p, "_SOFT_FLOAT"); > if ((flags & OPTION_MASK_RECIP_PRECISION) != 0) On the face of it, this should be independent of the arch flags patch too, since we're just adding a new -mcpu= option. However, I know that uses the isa/arch flags, so if we were to do it before the arch flags patches, then we'd end up adding a useless isa flag which would require a user visible -m<option>, correct? I'd prefer this go in before the arch flags patch too, but I also don't want to add another -m<option> patch to do it, so I'm undecided on this. Segher, do you have a preference on before or after? Peter
