From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 315FD3858D37; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 01:55:25 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 315FD3858D37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1698112525;
	bh=ZWD8UZbHtAbvy47pCVxNll4OPcw1gExgZd69R+XlK+w=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=THVOeL9YwufRTC9nzGJv13sGxv/Gc/z9G0uR9U8ky29MNek15BCZ55OAB1ujO4KvN
	 3JFyz8FWo8w3YAAiyCoRTrgqeFTDWHKFKjToMJqayP4YSpDRXkd/JhJ+dXfL/YnwuU
	 lqxjiiw5w/lfSsNkph9zJGkrWlRRpWGZ6ZWoEVE8=
From: "mxlol233 at outlook dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/111937] [RISCV][lto][offload] When `NUM_POLY_INT_COEFFS`
 > 1, the `poly_xxx`  made `lto_input_mode_table` unable to parse binary
 gimple data.
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 01:55:17 +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: 13.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: mxlol233 at outlook dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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: <bug-111937-4-rm1JUNDl4z@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111937-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111937-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111937

--- Comment #2 from Xiao Ma <mxlol233 at outlook dot com> ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #1)
> Created attachment 56178 [details]
> 0001-WIP-STATIC_ASSERT-MAX_MACHINE_MODE-256.patch
>=20
> (In reply to Xiao Ma from comment #0)

> I'm not sure about your initial analysis; I'm not familiar with the
> code/changes you cite.
>=20
> However, please try building with the attached
> '0001-WIP-STATIC_ASSERT-MAX_MACHINE_MODE-256.patch'.  If that triggers,
> we've (likely...) found (one of) your issue(s).

Thanks for your advice, I will check this out, and attach a patch to show h=
ow
to reproduce it, under the upstream gcc.=