vec_perm_const hook -- Fix build failure in ARM backend

vec_perm_const hook -- Fix build failure in ARM backend

[Prathamesh Kulkarni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 889 bytes --]

Hi,
I forgot to adjust prototype for arm_vectorize_vec_perm_const, which,
resulted in following
build error:

# 00:05:33 make[3]: [Makefile:1787:
armv8l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/bits/largefile-config.h] Error 1
(ignored)
# 00:10:53 /home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg_gnu_4/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/config/arm/arm.cc:299:13:
error: ‘bool arm_vectorize_vec_perm_const(machine_mode, rtx, rtx, rtx,
const vec_perm_indices&)’ declared ‘static’ but never defined
[-Werror=unused-function]
# 00:12:22 make[3]: *** [Makefile:2418: arm.o] Error 1
# 00:23:34 make[2]: *** [Makefile:5005: all-stage2-gcc] Error 2
# 00:23:34 make[1]: *** [Makefile:25739: stage2-bubble] Error 2
# 00:23:34 make: *** [Makefile:1072: all] Error 2

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2022-May/076645.html

The attached patch fixes it.
OK to commit ?

Thanks,
Prathamesh

[-- Attachment #2: arm-1.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 624 bytes --]

diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.cc b/gcc/config/arm/arm.cc
index 70c2d50f0cc..7ecf7b74ffa 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.cc
@@ -296,8 +296,8 @@ static int arm_cortex_a5_branch_cost (bool, bool);
 static int arm_cortex_m_branch_cost (bool, bool);
 static int arm_cortex_m7_branch_cost (bool, bool);
 
-static bool arm_vectorize_vec_perm_const (machine_mode, rtx, rtx, rtx,
-					  const vec_perm_indices &);
+static bool arm_vectorize_vec_perm_const (machine_mode, machine_mode, rtx, rtx,
+					  rtx, const vec_perm_indices &);
 
 static bool aarch_macro_fusion_pair_p (rtx_insn*, rtx_insn*);
 

Re: vec_perm_const hook -- Fix build failure in ARM backend

[Christophe Lyon]

Hi Prathamesh,


On 5/27/22 09:11, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi,
> I forgot to adjust prototype for arm_vectorize_vec_perm_const, which,
> resulted in following
> build error:
> 
> # 00:05:33 make[3]: [Makefile:1787:
> armv8l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/bits/largefile-config.h] Error 1
> (ignored)
> # 00:10:53 /home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg_gnu_4/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/config/arm/arm.cc:299:13:
> error: ‘bool arm_vectorize_vec_perm_const(machine_mode, rtx, rtx, rtx,
> const vec_perm_indices&)’ declared ‘static’ but never defined
> [-Werror=unused-function]
> # 00:12:22 make[3]: *** [Makefile:2418: arm.o] Error 1
> # 00:23:34 make[2]: *** [Makefile:5005: all-stage2-gcc] Error 2
> # 00:23:34 make[1]: *** [Makefile:25739: stage2-bubble] Error 2
> # 00:23:34 make: *** [Makefile:1072: all] Error 2
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2022-May/076645.html
> 
> The attached patch fixes it.
> OK to commit ?
> 

Doesn't this count as "obvious" ?

Thanks,

Christophe

> Thanks,
> Prathamesh

Re: vec_perm_const hook -- Fix build failure in ARM backend

[Prathamesh Kulkarni]

On Mon, 30 May 2022 at 13:04, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Prathamesh,
>
>
> On 5/27/22 09:11, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I forgot to adjust prototype for arm_vectorize_vec_perm_const, which,
> > resulted in following
> > build error:
> >
> > # 00:05:33 make[3]: [Makefile:1787:
> > armv8l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/bits/largefile-config.h] Error 1
> > (ignored)
> > # 00:10:53 /home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg_gnu_4/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/config/arm/arm.cc:299:13:
> > error: ‘bool arm_vectorize_vec_perm_const(machine_mode, rtx, rtx, rtx,
> > const vec_perm_indices&)’ declared ‘static’ but never defined
> > [-Werror=unused-function]
> > # 00:12:22 make[3]: *** [Makefile:2418: arm.o] Error 1
> > # 00:23:34 make[2]: *** [Makefile:5005: all-stage2-gcc] Error 2
> > # 00:23:34 make[1]: *** [Makefile:25739: stage2-bubble] Error 2
> > # 00:23:34 make: *** [Makefile:1072: all] Error 2
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2022-May/076645.html
> >
> > The attached patch fixes it.
> > OK to commit ?
> >
>
> Doesn't this count as "obvious" ?
OK, pushed.

Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
> Thanks,
>
> Christophe
>
> > Thanks,
> > Prathamesh