[PATCH 0/7] aarch64: Support SME without SVE

[Alice Carlotti]

On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 03:12:51PM +0000, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> Hi Alice,
> 
> > On 5 Jan 2026, at 15:39, Alice Carlotti <alice.carlotti@arm.com> 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
>