On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 03:12:51PM +0000, Iain Sandoe wrote: > Hi Alice, > > > On 5 Jan 2026, at 15:39, Alice Carlotti <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This series has three parts. The first three patches fix issues arising > > from > > the original assumption that SME implied SVE2. Patch 4 can then remove the > > "sorry" we put in place last year for "+sme+nosve" configurations. The > > remaining patches adapt existing tests (either in place or by creating > > duplicate copies) to provide good test coverage for +sme+nosve > > configurations. > > > > Apart from the addition of __arm_get_current_vg to libgcc, this series > > should > > have no functional change for any feature combinations that are currently > > supported on trunk. > > thanks for adding me to the cc. > > I merged this with my current Darwin branch and built / tested it - the tests > are > somewhat inconclusive at the moment, since there are hundreds of function > body check fails - which (probably) just mean I need to tweak the tests to > cater > for the code-gen differences (but of course could be more sinister). Tweaking > is very time-consuming so I don’t think it will get done any time soon.
Is this just a rebase on top of https://github.com/iains/gcc-darwin-arm64? If I can test this on a cross-compiler then I could investigate there - I know already that many of these tests could be sensitive to tuning. > > Is there some generic execution smoke test for SME (without SVE)? I don't think we have any "generic" execution tests, but we do have a couple in g++.target/aarch64/sme/sme_throw_*. If those tests execute correctly, then that indicates that various parts of the toolchain are doing the right thing (at least some of the time). Thanks, Alice > > thanks > Iain > > > > > Is this ok for master? > > > > Thanks, > > Alice >
