http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865

--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Hi Richi,

Passes bootstrap on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu and fixes this test, but breaks
two others:

57,60c57,68
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-96.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-96.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access
forced using peeling" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-96.c -flto  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 1
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-96.c -flto  scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of
access forced using peeling" 1
---
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 
> loops" 2
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of 
> access forced using peeling" 2
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing 
> an unaligned access" 4
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-4.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 
> loops" 2
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-4.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of 
> access forced using peeling" 2
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-4.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing 
> an unaligned access" 8
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c -flto  scan-tree-dump-times vect 
> "vectorized 1 loops" 2
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c -flto  scan-tree-dump-times vect 
> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-1.c -flto  scan-tree-dump-times vect 
> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 4
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-4.c -flto  scan-tree-dump-times vect 
> "vectorized 1 loops" 2
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-4.c -flto  scan-tree-dump-times vect 
> "Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-4.c -flto  scan-tree-dump-times vect 
> "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 8
67,68c75,76
< # of expected passes        94200
< # of unexpected failures    56
---
> # of expected passes          94192
> # of unexpected failures      64

Reply via email to