[Bug target/105463] [11 Regression] MVE: Wrong code, incorrect alignment assumption

["cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105463

--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw
<rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac1fce509ddd99e825073b3a9eab5911ac3dc454

commit r11-10231-gac1fce509ddd99e825073b3a9eab5911ac3dc454
Author: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
Date:   Wed May 11 13:08:40 2022 +0100

    arm: correctly handle misaligned MEMs on MVE [PR105463]

    Vector operations in MVE must be aligned to the element size, so if we
    are asked for a misaligned move in a wider mode we must recast it to a
    form suitable for the known alignment (larger elements have better
    address offset ranges, so there is some advantage to using wider
    element sizes if possible).  Whilst fixing this, also rework the
    predicates used for validating operands - the Neon predicates are
    not right for MVE.

    gcc/ChangeLog:

            PR target/105463
            * config/arm/mve.md (*movmisalign<mode>_mve_store): Use
            mve_memory_operand.
            (*movmisalign<mode>_mve_load): Likewise.
            * config/arm/vec-common.md (movmisalign<mode>): Convert to
generator
            form...
            (@movmisalign<mode>): ... thus.  Use generic predicates and then
            rework operands if they are not valid.  For MVE rework to a
            narrower element size if the alignment is not high enough.

    (cherry picked from commit 6a116728e27c4da65d84483c0e75561a7479d4d5)