PPC binutils opcodes

[lkcl]

On May 11, 2022 9:06:38 PM GMT+01:00, Dmitry Selyutin
<ghostmansd@gmail.com> wrote:

> -mvle. We, for now, use -mlibresoc[0]. So, as a matter of fact, there
> is, and we use it. But I'd also be interested to know whether this
> should be handled differently than it is now.
>
> [0] https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=a1e12c31e28e8c630ad129fd672c25779b360d5f

my question is whether unapproved Draft instructions should be
permitted upstream *at all*. given that we are the first group to ever
design new instructions outside of IBM and the OPF Membership and will
be the first to utilise the upcoming ISA WG "External Contributor" RFC
Process this has never come up before.

a dynamic loadable plugin would make it clear that non-approved Draft
instructions may not be upstream where they could cause irrevocable
nightmare opcode conflict damage but at least is not massively
inconvenient to maintain for vendors wishing to develop Custom
processors using the Sandboxed (EXT022) opcode area.

given that we have used up the entirety of EXT022 [1] with bitmanip
and other Draft instructions, and have had to allocate some in EXT019
[2], others in EXT004 [3], and even more in EXT005 (Draft ternlogi,
grevlogi from [1]) , this is kinda important to know.

(Alan, i have raised this with the OPF Board of Directors).

l.

[1] https://libre-soc.org/openpower/sv/bitmanip/
[2] https://libre-soc.org/openpower/isa/svfparith/
[3] https://libre-soc.org/openpower/isa/svfixedarith/