This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug testsuite/51693] New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux
- From: "michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:19:54 +0000
- Subject: [Bug testsuite/51693] New XPASSes in vectorizer testsuite on powerpc64-suse-linux
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-51693-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
--- Comment #6 from Michael Zolotukhin <michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com> 2011-12-28 16:19:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > In vect-peel-3.c we actually assume that vector length is 16 byte. Here is the
> > loop body:
> > suma += ia[i];
> > sumb += ib[i+5];
> > sumc += ic[i+1];
> > When vector-size is 16, then peeling can make two of three accesses aligned,
> > but when vector size is 32 that's impossible. That's why using
> > vector_sizes_32B_16B might be correct here.
>
> Ah, now I understand. I was confused by vect_aligned_arrays, and it's
> irrelevant here, right?
Actually yes, you're right. I think, ideally, vect_aligned_arrays should be
somehow checked in such tests, as in them we assume that array's beginning is
aligned - but that's not the rootcause of the xpasses.
> Yes, vector_sizes_32B_16B seems to be ok in that case.
Other two tests (vect-multitypes-1.c and no-section-anchors-vect-69.c) look
like having the same problem - are you ok for similar fix for them too, i.e. is
patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01600/vec-tests-avx2_fixes-7.patch
ok for trunk?
Thanks, Michael