On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 03:52:58PM +0100, Andrew Carlotti wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 07:17:24AM +0000, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > I've pushed this to master now (with a couple of Changelog fixes). I'll > backport it to GCC 14 next week if there are no issues.
Backported cleanly to GCC 14, and pushed after passing regression testing.
