This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/31561] FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90
- From: "fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 13 Apr 2007 12:13:34 -0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/31561] FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90
- References: <bug-31561-50@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-13 13:13 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" } }
> ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using peeling"
> 1 "vect" } }
> ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 "vect"
> } }
> ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "accesses have the same alignment." 1
> "vect" } }
I think the only thing that really matters is that the loop is vectorized. I
don't think the alignment details are important checking, even on platforms
where they are relevant. So we should remove all scan-tree-dump-times except
the first one, I guess.
I'm adding Ira and Dorit to the CC list, as they wrote and modified the
original test. Ira, Dorit, I'm not sure how to proceed here, do you agree with
the paragraph above about what is the right thing to do?
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |irar at il dot ibm dot com,
| |dorit at il dot ibm dot com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-04-13 13:13:33
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31561