From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6921 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2011 10:24:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 6912 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Apr 2011 10:24:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:24:50 +0000 From: "rguenther at suse dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/48377] [4.6/4.7 regression] miscompilation at -O3 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.1 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:24:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00699.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48377 --- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de 2011-04-07 10:24:45 UTC --- On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, irar at il dot ibm.com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48377 > > --- Comment #19 from Ira Rosen 2011-04-07 09:55:44 UTC --- > (In reply to comment #18) > > I think rather tree-vect-data-refs.c:vector_alignment_reachable_p should > > be adjusted. These "packed" checks in the target hooks don't make any > > sense to me either. > > Yes, I think this can be moved to vector_alignment_reachable_p. > > > In fact, I fail to see the point of a target hook > > completely (if it isn't maybe just for cost issues). > > There are some target specific checks in rs6000.c and arm.c. I saw them, but I can't see what the difference is between "aligned" and "aligned" ;) Either the targets have aligned loads or they don't. We can target independently check whether we can for example reach 16-byte alignment - in which cases is it then we can't "reach" that alignment anyway due to target issues?