From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3335 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2010 06:38:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 3321 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Aug 2010 06:38:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_MF,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtagate7.de.ibm.com (HELO mtagate7.de.ibm.com) (195.212.17.167) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 06:38:51 +0000 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate7.de.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o746cmn3031428 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:38:48 GMT Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.229]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o746ckg61843310 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 08:38:48 +0200 Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id o746cjVa032388 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 08:38:45 +0200 Received: from d12mc102.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrml1506.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.164.56] (may be forged)) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o746cjxF032383; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 08:38:45 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20100803173200.33d079bf@rex.config> References: <20091117171931.053faec2@rex.config> <1259593368.6000.40.camel@e200601-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20091218172204.3c0eab5b@rex.config> <200912211220.12265.paul@codesourcery.com> <20100518013108.5514d986@rex.config> <20100604135031.3d77a087@rex.config> <1275668777.6827.83.camel@e102346-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20100607200848.0fe3ab59@rex.config> <20100803173200.33d079bf@rex.config> Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM] Misaligned access support for ARM Neon X-KeepSent: 4A894985:F4096CA8-C2257775:0021AA1C; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: Julian Brown Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Paul Brook , Richard Earnshaw Message-ID: From: Ira Rosen Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 06:38:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00250.txt.bz2 Julian Brown wrote on 03/08/2010 07:32:00 PM: > There remains a small amount of noise in testsuite results with this > patch, i.e.: > > PASS -> FAIL: mthumb-march_armv7-a-mfpu_neon-mfloat-abi_softfp/ > gcc.sum:gcc.dg/ve > ct/vect-72.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Alignment of access forced > using peeling > " 0 > > This fails because a loop containing both an unaligned load and an > unaligned store is unpeeled, making the load aligned. It seems to be > a valid thing to do, so I'm not sure why it's a failure. The store is supposed to be aligned, and the test checks how we handle unaligned load. If somehow peeling is done for the load, causing the store to be unaligned, it is a valid thing to do, just make sure that it is also reasonable for the target. Ira