From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 7BD363857BA4; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 16:40:05 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7BD363857BA4 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1686847205; bh=7HsM8Q9c7wazRKYLUC2PQCncyquggfaE3d5s1JtysNc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=WKPCECh9lwilSNz7gFr1+WrhXdMczTji82rk87IKvmUNrJBVQ5tlNY1HT50B3cyh4 l3DtHjm++jP5NbvHzogOQsz+Sb/ovRhMY0rXx+hS8/T8wIEsz7JmwehldnjJbHSXMU 2+GjJgP/JLk43cMpK4MxRStrO232tCpc8yghzNBk= From: "clyon at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/110268] [14 Regression] arm MVE intrinsics support broken with LTO Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 16:40:05 +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: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: clyon at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- 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=3D110268 --- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon --- This regression appeared after the patch that re-implements vdupq, but the issue is likely more generic. velo r I tried to update arm_init_mve_builtins() with: + if (in_lto_p) + { + arm_mve::handle_arm_mve_types_h (); + arm_mve::handle_arm_mve_h (false); + } but that's not sufficient, we still get the same error although the MVE intrinsics are registered. I noticed that the error happens in unpack_ts_function_decl_value_fields() = with fcode=3D=3D885, not sure where it comes from? Besides, we'll also have to check how to compute the right value for handle_arm_mve_h's parameter.=