> On 15 Aug 2024, at 18:48, Andrew Carlotti <andrew.carlo...@arm.com> wrote: > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 05:15:03PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Andrew Carlotti <andrew.carlo...@arm.com> writes: >>> This series of patches fixes issues with some intrinsics being incorrectly >>> gated by global target options, instad of just using function-specific >>> target >>> options. These issues have been present since the +tme, +memtag and +ls64 >>> intrinsics were introduced. >>> >>> Compared to the previous version, this series no longer adds feature checks >>> to >>> the intrinsic expanders, and fixes various formatting issues pointed out by >>> Richard Sandiford. >>> >>> Additionally, the series now refactors the checking of >>> TARGET_GENERAL_REGS_ONLY >>> in check_required_extensions. This refactor is included as a new patch >>> (1/5) >>> to make the diffs more readable. >>> >>> >>> Bootstrapped and regression tested on aarch64. Ok to merge? >> >> LGTM, thanks. OK if there are no other comments before the weekend. >> >>> Also, ok for backports to affected versions (with regression tests)? >> >> Hmm, it seems a bit invasive. And if the GCC 11 tag in the PR is >> anything to go by, it sounds like this is already unfixable behaviour >> in at least one release series. > > I think the impact is minimal prior to FMV support, so backporting is less > important for older versions. The series should backport cleanly to GCC 14, > but would have conflicts in earlier version, so I think it would be sensible > to > backport to GCC 14 and not further.
I think backporting only to GCC 14 is sensible. The intrinsics in question tbh are or will be shipping hardware that I don’t expect will be used with older compilers much to be worth the risk of adjusting the patches for those branches. Thanks, Kyrill > >> Let's see if anyone else has any opinions. >> >> Richard
