[Bug tree-optimization/49443] gcc.dg/vect/vect-peel-3.c and vect-peel-4.c fail on IA64 after testsuite change

["irar at il dot ibm.com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49443

--- Comment #2 from Ira Rosen <irar at il dot ibm.com> 2011-06-19 08:09:43 UTC ---
Both tests contain misaligned accesses and cannot be vectorized on targets that
have no misalignment support, like ia64. So, I think, the tests should just
fail:

Index: vect-peel-3.c
===================================================================
--- vect-peel-3.c       (revision 175101)
+++ vect-peel-3.c       (working copy)
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@
   return main1 ();
 }

-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 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
peeling" 1 "vect" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail vect_no_align } } } */
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */
Index: vect-peel-4.c
===================================================================
--- vect-peel-4.c       (revision 175101)
+++ vect-peel-4.c       (working copy)
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
   return main1 ();
 }

-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 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
peeling" 0 "vect" } } */
 /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */


They worked before r175009, because the tests didn't take into account vectors
of two ints, and all the accesses were aligned unintentionally.

Could you please verify that the above patch fixes the failures?

Thanks,
Ira