https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56010
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #9) > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8) > >> 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. > > Well, we have a -mcpu=power5+ because power5+ added a few new instructions > over and above what power5 has. That is not the case with power7+. It > implements the exact same instructions that power7 does, so power7+ doesn't > really buy us anything. It makes life simpler for users who do not know that -- like the compiler itself with -mcpu=native :-) (Compare with 740 vs. 750, although you could call that historical accident). power7 and power7+ have different cache sizes, if we ever bother to get that right, too. > >> 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. > > Well, it was easy enough to add support for them in case some did try in the > future. Up to you though if you want to leave them out. The "fp" ones are not so easy. I don't know if 440gp is the same core. > > Could use 970 for pa6t, if we care. > > Its up to you if you want me to map that to 970. Let me know what you want > me to do. I don't think we care.