https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8cc56a8291a75fd96f50cb00ff1505c072c70808
commit 8cc56a8291a75fd96f50cb00ff1505c072c70808
Author: Alexandre Oliva <ol...@adacore.com>
Date: Sun Apr 28 01:43:51 2024 -0300
testsuite: adjust iteration count for ppc costmodel 76b
For some hardware which doesn't support unaligned vector memory access,
test case costmodel-vect-76b.c expects to see cost modeling would make
the decision that it's not profitable for peeling, according to the
commit history, test case comments and the way to check.
For now, the existing loop bound 14 works well for Power7, but it does
not for some targets on which the cost of operation vec_perm can be
different from Power7, such as: Power6, it's 3 vs. 1. This difference
further causes the difference (10 vs. 12) on the minimum iteration for
profitability and cause the failure. To keep the original test point,
this patch is to tweak the loop bound to ensure it's not profitable
to be vectorized for !vect_no_align with peeling.
Co-Authored-By: Kewen Lin <li...@linux.ibm.com>
for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
* gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c (N): Tweak.
Diff:
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c
index cbbfbb24658..e48b0ab759e 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-76b.c
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
/* On Power7 without misalign vector support, this case is to check it's not
profitable to perform vectorization by peeling to align the store. */
-#define N 14
+#define N 13
#define OFF 4
/* Check handling of accesses for which the "initial condition" -
