On 5/22/19 8:54 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:51:50PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_option_override_internal): Treat
>> PROCESSOR_FUTURE similarly to PROCESSOR_POWER9 for now.
>> (rs6000_machine_from_flags): Handle future cpu.
>>
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:51:50PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_option_override_internal): Treat
> PROCESSOR_FUTURE similarly to PROCESSOR_POWER9 for now.
> (rs6000_machine_from_flags): Handle future cpu.
> (rs6000_reassociation_width): Treat
On 5/22/19 6:05 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:51:50PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> +/* Define if your assembler supports FUTURE instructions. */
>> +#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
>> +#undef HAVE_AS_FUTURE
>> +#endif
> Let's not use that? I removed HAVE_AS_* (f
Hi Bill,
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:51:50PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> +/* Define if your assembler supports FUTURE instructions. */
> +#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
> +#undef HAVE_AS_FUTURE
> +#endif
Let's not use that? I removed HAVE_AS_* (for ISA version support) in
r264675:
"""
rs6000: Delete
Hi,
This patch introduces the infrastructure to support -mcpu=future, used for
features
in a future architecture, as yet unnamed.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu with no regressions.
Is
this okay for trunk?
Thanks,
Bill
Add infrastructure to support -mcpu=future to
