PPC binutils opcodes

[Alan Modra]

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 08:46:16PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> (thanks kindly for cc'ing alan)
> 
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 2:13 PM Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Yes, we are getting close to the limit on mainline, 241 entries.
> 
> Matrix-Multiply-Assist and etc. from Power ISA 3.1 i presume, which have
> new Forms and new operand field names?

The most recent change that added two dozen or so entries was removing
powerpc_macros.  Moving those extended instructions into the main
powerpc_opcodes table meant writing a bunch of insert and extract
functions to poke operands into the underlying instruction fields, and
of course they need new entries in powerpc_operands.

> btw what's the best advice for submitting Draft work? we're attempting
> to keep to the Sandbox EXT022 but at some point we're going to run
> out of space there.  is there a "--draft" or "--experimental" flag
> that can be set?
> or is it something that is fine under a new CPU name (e.g. -mlibresoc)?

I don't see any reason why you shouldn't use -mlibresoc or whatever
you choose.  The nonsense over -mfuture was entirely non-technical:
The non-engineering parts of IBM hadn't decided the naming of
power10.

> given that the Power ISA is both Trademarked and controlled by the
> OpenPOWER Foundation, i quite understand if the answer is,
> "You Don't - not until it's ratified by the ISA WG".

Also not a problem as far as the binutils project is concerned.
Experimental and/or subject to change is fine, so long as you don't
break other cpu support.

-- 
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM