This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix PR52614
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:59 PM, William J. Schmidt
> On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 11:30 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> 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?
> Follow-up question: ?Should -ftree-vectorize imply -fno-common in the
> short term?
That's probably more a C language question - you would get valid C
rejected with -fno-common. But maybe -ftree-vectorize should suggest
-fno-common when it encounters a case it would like to promote alignment
for. Not sure if for example Fortran would ever work with -fno-common though.