On 11/11/25 3:19 am, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> 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.
Certainly, but the code we add should be extendable to other future
processors too. We should not be making changes that are specific to only
FUTURE and which will not work for FUTURE+1.
-Surya
