https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56010
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8) >> This kernel AT_PLATFORM name should strip the '+' off: >> .platform = "power7+", -> "power7" > > We probably should have a -mcpu=power7+, we have power5+ as well etc. Well, we have a -mcpu=power5+ because power5+ added a few new instructions over and above what power5 has. That is not the case with power7+. It implements the exact same instructions that power7 does, so power7+ doesn't really buy us anything. >> These kernel AT_PLATFORM names should strip their prefix and suffix off: >> .platform = "ppc440gp", -> "440" >> .platform = "ppc-cell-be", -> "cell" >> >> These kernel AT_PLATFORM names should strip the 'ppc' prefix off, as >> well as test the AT_HWCAP for PPC_FEATURE_HAS_FPU: >> .platform = "ppc405", -> "405" | "405fp" >> .platform = "ppc440", -> "440" | "440fp" >> >> This kernel AT_PLATFORM name should strip the 'ppc' prefix off, change >> 470 to 476 as well as test the AT_HWCAP for PPC_FEATURE_HAS_FPU: >> .platform = "ppc470", -> "476" | "476fp" > > We could also decide not to support those for "native" (except cell?), > they all have problems and no one will try to build on those anyway. > I hope. Well, it was easy enough to add support for them in case some did try in the future. Up to you though if you want to leave them out. > e500mc64 is a different core AFAIK, one that was never shipped anyway. Ok, so the current patch and the updated one I'm working on don't support it, so I'll leave it that way. > Could use 970 for pa6t, if we care. Its up to you if you want me to map that to 970. Let me know what you want me to do.
