================
@@ -1802,9 +1854,29 @@ void SVEEmitter::createStreamingAttrs(raw_ostream &OS,
ACLEKind Kind) {
if (Def->isFlagSet(IsStreamingFlag))
StreamingMap["ArmStreaming"].insert(Def->getMangledName());
- else if (Def->isFlagSet(VerifyRuntimeMode))
+ else if (Def->isFlagSet(VerifyRuntimeMode)) {
+ // Verify that the target guards contain at least one feature that
+ // actually enables SVE or SME (explicitly, or implicitly). This is
needed
+ // for the code in SemaARM.cpp (checkArmStreamingBuiltin) that checks
+ // whether the required runtime mode for an intrinsic matches with the
+ // given set of target features and function attributes.
+ //
+ // The feature lists below must match the disabled features in
+ // 'checkArmStreamingBuiltin'!
+ if (!Def->getSVEGuard().empty() &&
+ !verifyGuard(Def->getSVEGuard(),
+ {"sve", "sve2", "sve2p1", "sve2-aes", "sve2-sha3",
----------------
sdesmalen-arm wrote:
Thanks for pointing those out!
It's worth saying that we could also implement things differently and require
all SVE target guards to have "sve/sve2/sve2p1" as a base, such that `let
SVETargetGuard = "sve2-aes"` becomes `let SVETargetGuard = "sve2,sve2-aes"`.
That means we need to refactor some of the target guards in the .td files, but
it means we don't have to continually add all features that imply
sve/sve2/sve2p1 to this list (and the list in SemaARM.cpp). For end-users I
think it doesn't matter, the only difference is in the diagnostic which prints
the required features for the intrinsic. Perhaps that is the better way forward.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109420
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
