Hi! On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 11:25:29PM +0530, Surya Kumari Jangala wrote: > I believe the global variable rs6000_cpu can be used, at least in some > places in this patch wherever TARGET_FUTURE is being used. In other places > too, perhaps we can avoid this variable? The main issue is it is not > clear how will we handle any new processor that may be developed after the > potential FUTURE processor.
We should not have a "Future" thing that stands in for any future stuff. The thing we _now_ call "Future" we will rename (probably to POWER12, but who knows!) soon enough. And then when we start doing stuff for what everyone assumes wil be called POWER13, we'll call that "Future" again, for the time being. We cannot suggest that POWER13 will have feature X, and Y execution units, and speed Z. Some people are afraid that if we (developers) state we have some goal, that customers will see that as something we promised them, and then maybe even sue us. There always is just one thing called Future, but it is a stand-in name for one particular name at all times, it never is nor will be a generic thing for "whatever shows up in the future". It is a workaround for big corporation bureaucracy, not a development strategy. If we had overlapping generations of development, we'd have a FUTURE2 as well :-) We can sugarcoat it a bit in helptexts, but that is about it. Whenever you see "Future", you can probably guess what the CPU will be called when (and if!) it eventually shows up. And then when the hardware is publically announced, we will rename stuff. But we never said that Power_(N+1) will have these features, or this speed, etc. :-) Segher
