On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 07:30:51PM +0530, Surya Kumari Jangala wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 14/06/25 2:07 pm, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > This is patch #1 of 4 that adds the support that can be used in developing
> > GCC
> > support for future PowerPC processors.
>
> Please reword the commit message, perhaps something like:
> This is patch #1 of 4 that adds support for the option -mcpu=future. This
> enables
> future enhancements to GCC for supporting upcoming PowerPC processors.
Thanks.
> > @@ -5905,6 +5909,8 @@ rs6000_machine_from_flags (void)
> > flags &= ~(OPTION_MASK_PPC_GFXOPT | OPTION_MASK_PPC_GPOPT |
> > OPTION_MASK_ISEL
> > | OPTION_MASK_ALTIVEC);
> >
> > + if ((flags & (FUTURE_MASKS_SERVER & ~ISA_3_1_MASKS_SERVER)) != 0)
>
> The test should be against POWER11_MASKS_SERVER, not ISA_3_1_MASKS_SERVER.
Thanks, good catch.
> > @@ -24450,6 +24463,7 @@ static struct rs6000_opt_mask const
> > rs6000_opt_masks[] =
> > { "float128", OPTION_MASK_FLOAT128_KEYWORD, false,
> > true },
> > { "float128-hardware", OPTION_MASK_FLOAT128_HW, false, true },
> > { "fprnd", OPTION_MASK_FPRND, false,
> > true },
> > + { "future", OPTION_MASK_FUTURE, false,
> > false },
>
> Please add this line after the "power11" line.
Again, like in POWERPC_MASKS, all of the entries are sorted in alphabetical
order.
> Also, in the routine expand_compare_loop(), we should handle PROCESSOR_FUTURE
> when computing max_bytes.
Thanks, I missed that.
--
Michael Meissner, IBM
PO Box 98, Ayer, Massachusetts, USA, 01432
email: [email protected]
