Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> writes: > On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 09:58, Matthias Kretz wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I applied and did extended testing on x86_64 (no regressions) and aarch64 >> using qemu testing SVE 256, 512, and 1024. Looks good! >> >> While going through the applied patch I noticed a few style issues that I >> simply turned into a patch (attached). >> > [...] >> >> From my side, with the noted changes the patch is ready for merging. >> @Jonathan, any chance for a green light before GCC 14.1? > > As discussed on IRC, please push the revised patch with your > suggestions incorporated (and post to the lists for posterity). > > Thanks, everybody, for the patches and the thorough review.
I'm still worried about: #if _GLIBCXX_SIMD_HAVE_SVE constexpr inline int __sve_vectorized_size_bytes = __ARM_FEATURE_SVE_BITS / 8; #else constexpr inline int __sve_vectorized_size_bytes = 0; #endif and the direct use __ARM_FEATURE_SVE_BITS elsewhere, for the reasons discussed here (including possible ODR problems): https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-December/640037.html https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/643734.html Logically the vector length should be a template parameter rather than an invariant. Has this been resolved? If not, it feels like a blocker to me (sorry). Thanks, Richard
