https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56010
Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #5)
> Going through the kernel cputable.c file and comparing it to
> rs6000-cpus.def, I think the name translation should like:
>
> These kernel AT_PLATFORM names can be used as is:
> .platform = "powerpc",
> .platform = "power3",
> .platform = "power4",
> .platform = "power5",
> .platform = "power5+",
> .platform = "power6",
> .platform = "power6x",
> .platform = "power7",
> .platform = "power8",
> .platform = "power9",
>
> 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.
> These kernel AT_PLATFORM names should strip the 'ppc' prefix off:
> .platform = "ppc970", -> "970"
> .platform = "ppc601", -> "601"
> .platform = "ppc603", -> "603"
> .platform = "ppc604", -> "604"
> .platform = "ppc750", -> "750"
> .platform = "ppc7400", -> "7400"
> .platform = "ppc7450", -> "7450"
> .platform = "ppc823", -> "823"
> .platform = "ppc403", -> "403"
> .platform = "ppc8540", -> "8540"
> .platform = "ppc8548", -> "8548"
> .platform = "ppce5500", -> "e5500"
> .platform = "ppce6500", -> "e6500"
Yup.
> 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.
> This kernel AT_PLATFORM name should strip the 'ppc' prefix off, as
> well as test the AT_HWCAP for PPC_FEATURE_64::
> .platform = "ppce500mc", -> "e500mc" | "e500mc64"
e500mc64 is a different core AFAIK, one that was never shipped anyway.
> These kernel AT_PLATFORM names do not seem to have an equivalent
> rs6000-cpus.def entry, so we probably should just treat them as
> unknown/non-existent names:
> .platform = "pa6t",
> .platform = "ppc5554",
Could use 970 for pa6t, if we care. 5554 is SPE (e200z6)
> I do question though, whether we should test the AT_HWCAP bits or not. Just
> because we're on, say a 476fp system, doesn't mean the toolchain and
> libraries are compiled with FP support. Thoughts anyone?
Not sure. Maybe just error out?
