From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32146 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2013 07:12:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 32097 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jun 2013 07:12:25 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,SPF_PASS,TW_AV autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mail-lb0-f178.google.com (HELO mail-lb0-f178.google.com) (209.85.217.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:12:24 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f178.google.com with SMTP id y6so4387945lbh.37 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:12:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.21.131 with SMTP id v3mr695887lae.50.1371625941988; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.3.106 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:12:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DATA_ABI_ALIGNMENT (PR target/56564) From: Igor Zamyatin To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg01095.txt.bz2 Right, as you did for other cases. It works here as well. Thanks, Igor On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:01:59AM +0400, Igor Zamyatin wrote: >> The change also affects vectorizer in avx case which could be seen for >> gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-19.c test. >> >> After the change report says >> >> loop-19_bad.c:16: note: === vect_analyze_data_refs_alignment === >> loop-19_bad.c:16: note: vect_compute_data_ref_alignment: >> loop-19_bad.c:16: note: can't force alignment of ref: a[j_9] >> loop-19_bad.c:16: note: vect_compute_data_ref_alignment: >> loop-19_bad.c:16: note: can't force alignment of ref: c[j_9] >> >> AFAICS first condition in ix86_data_alignment was true before the >> change so 256 was a return value. >> >> Do we need to tweak this test also? > > I'd add -fno-common to the test. > > Jakub