From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pj1-x102f.google.com (mail-pj1-x102f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102f]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A48D63857038 for ; Tue, 24 May 2022 05:41:38 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A48D63857038 Received: by mail-pj1-x102f.google.com with SMTP id ob14-20020a17090b390e00b001dff2a43f8cso1071862pjb.1 for ; Mon, 23 May 2022 22:41:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=Ewcli07Un6LWt8hTJhpyT77J+C4A/9lSG5d57zpjyYw=; b=rYs3qjt+uLTGCcQrl48QA5Q7zuvTdJzMoINWRumv8yCN0O4mrsuBjKGZyBIms6CuSM rRffM8sZfTtZagRLi/8kPGBQuwy5pCnusjRn3bK+ezpVzGocOYEKEgiCKA9wV4hRdeGl OGjieKX3HFlN1yJIeiVFvLPpNbTZTW8ot1Dkyxe46Nfc56o2IeHyoN5LO2z0+Sl1HONi ZEi7aMQ3wCHfjMUWxQ1S7EJdkFZd+Ubz2l0vL96tsNBSurkSC9G8ZYyWLkVgVzvzVO6h SD9MeZOif3C1Y0YD3yWTsipos6Qur3URs/CD1aXiZyOG3bCWj2x+npCtVM7glIWUt684 LzWw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533+5WRkphIDqcLpGoTYR1QGuk+sL8Mx/8yIXZsQIGM4N3uG0WGW A7f4xh+t5rOCJD4X7kGjBlQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzYsfTLyD1NVC9a3HGUow7R5Tc9ZfaJG2zfudiyH437KtpKNhxvFsPZfQae1kH/IaXf5+he6Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b289:b0:161:872d:6f03 with SMTP id u9-20020a170902b28900b00161872d6f03mr26432569plr.30.1653370897756; Mon, 23 May 2022 22:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squeak.grove.modra.org ([2406:3400:51d:8cc0:8373:2d95:0:d7a9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h128-20020a62de86000000b0050dc76281a4sm8239712pfg.126.2022.05.23.22.41.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 23 May 2022 22:41:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by squeak.grove.modra.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EFD8D11403F4; Tue, 24 May 2022 15:11:33 +0930 (ACST) Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 15:11:33 +0930 From: Alan Modra To: Dmitry Selyutin Cc: lkcl , binutils@sourceware.org, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton Subject: Re: Plugin-based opcode table Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3030.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: binutils@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Binutils mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 05:41:40 -0000 On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 04:06:17PM +0300, Dmitry Selyutin wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 3:59 PM Alan Modra wrote: > > I don't see any need for the artificial boundaries you might get with > > a plugin, whatever that might look like. ppc-opc.c already supports > > multiple incompatible powerpc cpu implementations, including ones that > > depart significantly from current powerpc ISA documentation. > > Alan, please, correct me if I'm wrong: does it mean that we can just > stick to marking new instructions and facilities with a custom per-CPU > flag? For now I introduced the -mlibresoc CPU which enabled the > PPC_OPCODE_SVP64 flag, and marked some new instructions appropriately > with this flag. Would that be OK if we follow this approach? Yes, that would be fine. -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM