[Bug middle-end/45429] New: [4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c

[Bug middle-end/45429] New: [4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

On Linux/ia64, revision 163565 gave

FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c scan-tree-dump-times vect
"Alignment of access forced using peeling" 2

Revision 163561 is OK.


-- 
           Summary: [4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-
                    64.c
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.5.3
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: middle-end
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45429

[Bug testsuite/45429] [4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.6.0
            Version|4.5.3                       |4.6.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45429

[Bug testsuite/45429] [4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45429

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-17 12:15:48 UTC ---
Fixed.

[Bug testsuite/45429] [4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45429

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-17 12:05:28 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 17 12:05:24 2010
New Revision: 166865

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166865
Log:
    PR testsuite/45429
    * gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c: New test.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c

[Bug testsuite/45429] [4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45429

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
                   |gnu.org                     |

[Bug testsuite/45429] [4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45429

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-17 10:25:40 UTC ---
And the reason why it only shows up on ia64 is because it uses vectorization
factor 2 instead of 4 that is used on x86_64/i386+sse2.  With:
int id[16][16][17]
id[i][1][0+1] is actually aligned to 2 * sizeof (int), so no peeling is needed
to align it.

[Bug testsuite/45429] [4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45429

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |NEW
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-17 10:20:16 UTC ---
In ia64 cross I see that only one
Alignment of access forced using peeling
message is printed (for the first loop), instead of two (for the first and
third loop).

If 163561 was ok, then then difference is most probably the change to the
testcase itself:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c?r1=163563&r2=163562&pathrev=163563

The culprit is the change of id array.

I guess we could do something like:

--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c.jj    2010-11-17
11:18:22.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c    2010-11-17
11:17:39.000000000 +0100
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 int ib[N] = {0,3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27,30,33,36,39,42,45};
 int ia[N][4][N+1];
 int ic[N][N][3][N+1];
-int id[N][N][N+1];
+int id[N][N][N+4];

 __attribute__ ((noinline))

(at least this seems to work for both ia64 and x86_64).

[Bug testsuite/45429] [4.6 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-64.c

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45429

Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2010.11.03 16:23:48
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-03 16:23:48 UTC ---
What does it instead say in the dump?