http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
--- Comment #1 from Michael Zolotukhin <michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com> 2011-12-28 11:08:36 UTC --- I though that if {vect_aligned_arrays} isn't true, than arrays could be aligned even after peeling - that's why I added such check. Unfortunately, I can't reproduce these fails, as I have no PowerPC. By the way, if arrays aren't aligned on Power, why does GCC produce such messages - does it really try to peel something? Maybe we should just refine the check? Anyway, if everything is ok with the tests (in original version) and with gcc itself - we could check not for vect_aligned_arrays, but for AVX. Please check http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01600.html and the attached to that letter patch. Thanks, Michael On 28 December 2011 14:51, irar at il dot ibm.com <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693 > > Bug #: 51693 > Summary: New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on > powerpc64-suse-linux > Classification: Unclassified > Product: gcc > Version: 4.7.0 > Status: UNCONFIRMED > Severity: normal > Priority: P3 > Component: testsuite > AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org > ReportedBy: i...@il.ibm.com > CC: michael.v.zolotuk...@gmail.com > Host: powerpc64-suse-linux > Target: powerpc64-suse-linux > Build: powerpc64-suse-linux > > > Revision 182583 http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=182583 > caused > several XPASSes on powerpc64-suse-linux: > > XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of > access forced using peeling" 2 > XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing > an unaligned access" 4 > XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an > unaligned access" 1 > XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of > access > forced using peeling" 1 > XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times vect > "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2 > XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times vect > "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 4 > XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing > an unaligned access" 1 > XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c -flto scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of > access forced using peeling" 1 > XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c scan-tree-dump-times vect > "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2 > > The reason is that {!vect_aligned_arrays} was added to xfail of the above > checks, while vect_aligned_arrays is false for power. > > Changing that, i.e.: > Index: ../../lib/target-supports.exp > =================================================================== > --- ../../lib/target-supports.exp (revision 182703) > +++ ../../lib/target-supports.exp (working copy) > @@ -3222,7 +3222,8 @@ proc check_effective_target_vect_aligned_arrays { > set et_vect_aligned_arrays_saved 1 > } > } > - if [istarget spu-*-*] { > + if {[istarget spu-*-*] > + || [istarget powerpc*-*-*] } { > set et_vect_aligned_arrays_saved 1 > } > } > > fixes the XPASSes and doesn't cause any problems (on powerpc64-suse-linux), > but > AFAIU arrays are not always vector aligned on power, so this is not a good > idea, unless we change the definition of > check_effective_target_vect_aligned_arrays. > > What was the purpose of adding {!vect_aligned_arrays} to these tests? If > peeling is impossible on AVX because arrays are never vector aligned, maybe we > need a new target check instead of vect_aligned_arrays? > > -- > Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are on the CC list for the bug.