From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 35EF33858C56; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:42:47 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 35EF33858C56
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1710517367;
	bh=B/or7oU43/C48HJrILsxdYzxoFHcrqd6BIFKjTfR3UM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=C9xiu2fknNK+NJObwNNUH/TB+cGxXO94bLa1ZVxNcR5luymi9pHie7jx4pLHQ1IRC
	 AVGWHD1QuoNcp9Bt1rSNH3p0RLlRhK60HuFPVLTvnqd3grfuL/5O+tiIIyDvXqgeRj
	 Z2Ep5sSIQW3nVCNwQJTUK4tcT3x4MmzYl6vJpdD4=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/113431] [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O3
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:42:46 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-bisection, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113431-4-zEbs14PlYR@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113431-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113431-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113431

--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> Though, trying that in a cross to arm, with -march=3Darmv9-a
> -munaligned-access it matches (in that case I believe vect_hw_misalign
> should be true), but it matches even with -march=3Darmv9-a
> -mno-unaligned-access (and in that case I think it should be
> !vect_hw_misaligned target).
> That said, sure, if it is
> /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "optimized: basic block part
> vectorized" 2 "slp1" { target { vect_int && vect_hw_misaligned } } } } */
> then it will simply not test anything on the non-vect_hw_misaligned targe=
ts,
> rather than say XPASS, so maybe that is ok.
>=20
> Richi, thoughts on that?

Yeah, I think that's OK.=