This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix PR52614
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- Cc: "William J. Schmidt" <wschmidt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 11:30:21 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR52614
- References: <1333594591.19102.40.camel@gnopaine> <5CA2FEF1-A102-45F1-8738-DDC19E7B635A@comcast.net>
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Mike Stump <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2012, at 7:56 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote:
>> There seems to be tacit agreement that the vector tests should use
>> -fno-common on all targets to avoid the recent spate of failures (see
>> discussion in 52571 and 52603).
>> OK for trunk?
> Ok. ?Any other solution I think will be real work and we shouldn't loose the testing between now and then by not having the test cases working.
Ian, you are the "source" of all of these problems. While I did not notice
any degradations in SPEC (on x86) with handling commons "correctly"
now, the fact
that our testsuite needs -fno-common to make things vectorizable shows
that users might be impacted negatively by this, which is only a real problem
in corner cases. Why can the link editor not promote the definitions alignment
when merging with a common with bigger alignment?