From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 3E5C63858D33; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 08:40:29 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3E5C63858D33 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1674636029; bh=jY1TZcE/pW2rI5H42+WJoiu7M3cygILCIf9Qjv+yPCw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=he77yyLtLkf60grLlnnXgV/s230o/diMFFFIFYPQ9R3m0cx4in7j4xRCkjrKTUyTW 67pGxa+DybDgfp5DAPYo5jgeMFJwvkv5/i6TSZT5huUklYkJjJ2xCfMkEGFRnjm7Ar kmww8RrYzQEy4RdVfFMZFYNqBJE5xnrqjXHo2Xoc= From: "dantipov at cloudlinux dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/108495] [10/11/12/13 Regression] aarch64 ICE with __builtin_aarch64_rndr Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 08:40:28 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: dantipov at cloudlinux dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.5 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108495 --- Comment #5 from Dmitry Antipov --- # cat t-rand.c=20 #include #include int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { uint64_t v; __rndr(&v); return 0; } # gcc t-rand.c=20 In file included from t-rand.c:2: /usr/lib/gcc/aarch64-redhat-linux/12/include/arm_acle.h: In function =E2=80= =98main=E2=80=99: /usr/lib/gcc/aarch64-redhat-linux/12/include/arm_acle.h:313:1: error: inlin= ing failed in call to =E2=80=98always_inline=E2=80=99 =E2=80=98__rndr=E2=80=99:= target specific option mismatch 313 | __rndr (uint64_t *__res) | ^~~~~~ t-rand.c:6:3: note: called from here 6 | __rndr(&v); | ^~~~~~~~~~ So, what target-specific option is wrong if none of them was specified?=