------- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-25 18:14 ------- (In reply to comment #5) > ah, ok. so, in that case we probably want to just change the '3' to '2' in the > above test: > Index: testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 > =================================================================== > --- testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 (revision 123954) > +++ testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 (working copy) > @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ > ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" } } > ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using > peeling" > 1 "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align } } } } > ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 > "vect" > { xfail { vect_no_align } } } } > -! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using > versioning." 3 "vect" { target { ilp32 && vect_no_align } } } } > +! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using > versioning." 2 "vect" { target { ilp32 && vect_no_align } } } } > ! We also expect to vectorize one loop for lp64 targets that support > ! misaligned access:
Are you going to submit/install your patch? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31615