[libre-riscv-dev] power pc

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 8:16 PM Michael Pham <pham.michael.98 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Does this mean that all these use cases will suffer from less
> efficiency if you do decide to switch to POWER?

that's what i really want to know.

> That seems like a huge downside honestly given how important C++11 is.
> Maybe just stick with RISC-V instead?

ohhh hell no.  if Hugh gets back to me that the other OpenPower
Members (NXP, IBM etc.) are ok with the "breakout" system
(ISANS/ISAMUX), in an "official" capacity, it's worth it, just for the
acceptance.

we can then always design and add c++-atomic-compatible instructions
(if it turns out that the implementation of standard power-atomics is
really that awkward).

l.