This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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 <> 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?
> Richard.

Follow-up question:  Should -ftree-vectorize imply -fno-common in the
short term?


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]