http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48377
--- Comment #25 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-04-07 12:44:35 UTC --- (In reply to comment #24) > (In reply to comment #23) > > Well, it's hard to accept such an easy solution when the original patch has > > hundreds of rows ;) > > > > So, you think that > > > > Index: tree-vect-data-refs.c > > =================================================================== > > --- tree-vect-data-refs.c (revision 172019) > > +++ tree-vect-data-refs.c (working copy) > > @@ -1110,12 +1110,9 @@ vector_alignment_reachable_p (struct dat > > if (ba) > > is_packed = contains_packed_reference (ba); > > > > - if (vect_print_dump_info (REPORT_DETAILS)) > > - fprintf (vect_dump, "Unknown misalignment, is_packed = > > %d",is_packed); > > - if (targetm.vectorize.vector_alignment_reachable (type, is_packed)) > > - return true; > > - else > > - return false; > > + if (is_packed > > + || compare_tree_int (TYPE_SIZE (type), TYPE_ALIGN (type)) > 0) > > + return false; > > } > > > > return true; > > > > is enough, and we can just get rid of vector_alignment_reachable? > > Yes, I think so. Even is_packed shouldn't be necessary, TYPE_ALIGN should better be correct (but IIRC it isn't for the FIELD_DECL types of packed struckts).
