Hi! On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:38:30PM +0530, Surya Kumari Jangala wrote: > On 14/06/25 2:13 pm, Michael Meissner wrote: > > This is patch #4 of 4 to add -mcpu=future support to the PowerPC. > > I think this should be a separate patch in itself. As such, this > patch is not required to enable the -mcpu=future option.
It can in theory be helpful to have it in the same series, but yeah, it certainly does not belong here. It should be a separate patch, and it should come with some evidence or at the very least some indication that it would be a good idea to have it at all, and proof that is not a *bad* idea! > > In the development for the power10 processor, GCC did not enable using the > > load > > vector pair and store vector pair instructions when optimizing things like > > s/things/functions "Things" is nicely non-specific, hehe. > > * config/rs6000/rs6000-cpus.def (ISA_FUTURE_MASKS_SERVER): Enable using > > Just FUTURE_MASKS_SERVER The existing masks are ISA_3_1_MASKS_SERVER (and many older ISAs before it), and POWER11_MASKS_SERVER . We do not have to call ISA 3.2 "Future", certainly not by IBM's lawyers, it isn't IBM who will publish Power Architecture revisions anyway! Yeah, ISA_FUTURE makes no sense in the first place, "Future" here is a stand-in for the marketing name for the next IBM Power Server chip. The (lawyers') fear is that if we publish the expected name for the next generation server CPU, and also GCC support for that CPU, that then some potential customers can argue in the future (har har) that that was a promise. So we call it "Future", no specific version or timespan, and of course we cannot really predict the future, and future plans can always change, too. You can expect that in the future (when things have settled) we will just do a tree-wide search and replace. > > * gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc (rs6000_machine_from_flags): Disable > > -mblock-ops-vector-pair from influcing .machine selection. > > nit: "influencing" Speling fixes are never a nit! Attention to details is important. > Also, in rs6000.opt, mblock-ops-vector-pair is marked as Undocumented. Should > we > change this? Probably yes. If the option is worth being user-selectable at all, we should document it. Segher
