This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix PR52614
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 11:30 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Mike Stump <email@example.com> 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?
Follow-up question: Should -ftree-vectorize imply -fno-common in the