On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 06:35:37PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.opt (-mfuture): New undocumented debug switch.
No. Never ever use a flag that does what -mcpu=<smth> should do. We're
still trying to recover from previous such mistakes. Don't add more
please.
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc
> @@ -447,6 +447,8 @@ rs6000_target_modify_macros (bool define_p, HOST_WIDE_INT
> flags)
> rs6000_define_or_undefine_macro (define_p, "_ARCH_PWR9");
> if ((flags & OPTION_MASK_POWER10) != 0)
> rs6000_define_or_undefine_macro (define_p, "_ARCH_PWR10");
> + if ((flags & OPTION_MASK_FUTURE) != 0)
> + rs6000_define_or_undefine_macro (define_p, "_ARCH_PWR_FUTURE");
if ((((a & B) != 0) != 0) != 0) ? You can do just
if (a & B)
Yes, existing code already does the silly thing, but just fix it then,
don't add more :-)
(And no if ((a & B)) either please).
> +static int
> +rs600_cpu_index_lookup (enum processor_type processor)
> +{
> + for (size_t i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE (processor_target_table); i++)
> + if (processor_target_table[i].processor == processor)
> + return i;
> +
> + return -1;
> +}
"int i" please, not "size_t". This has nothing to do with object sizes.
The loop counter will always be a small number.
> + /* At the moment, we don't have explict -mtune=future support. If the user
"At the moment" is out of date almost as soon as you write it. It is
better to avoid such terms ;-)
> + explicitly tried to use -mtune=future, give a warning. If not, use the
> + power10 tuning until future tuning is added. */
There should be Power11 tuning now, please use that?
So please post this -- as a separate series, and not as a single patch --
after fixing the things Ke Wen pointed out. Thanks!
Segher
