https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99216
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan <acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Right, the problem appears to be to do with the way that overloaded functions are implemented for the ACLE. Specifically the m_direct_overloads flag in aarch64_sve::function_builder. If this flag is set, we register a separate builtin (with a separate function code) for each overload as opposed to registering the overloaded function once and resolving it later. The two different schemes end up with each builtin having a different code. We set m_direct_overloads to be true if the language is C++: m_direct_overloads = lang_GNU_CXX (); so in cc1plus, we use one numbering scheme, but in lto1, we use a different numbering scheme, with predictably disastrous consequences (we try and expand svaddv as an svbic). So one options would be that for LTO we instantiate both sets of tree nodes. Then, when expanding a tree node that came from LTO, we dispatch on a flag in the tree node (essentially just whether it came from C++ or not) to determine which set of functions to use. Seems a bit messy though. @Richard: does that sound at all sane? Any ideas for a better approach?
