------- Comment #5 from dorit at il dot ibm dot com 2007-04-19 07:27 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > But then I wonder why we don't see the same failure on ia64?
> Because the failing part of the testcase is only done on ilp32 targets:
> ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
> versioning." 3 "vect" { target { ilp32 && vect_no_align
> } } } }
ah, ok. so, in that case we probably want to just change the '3' to '2' in the
above test:
Index: testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90
===================================================================
--- testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 (revision 123954)
+++ testsuite/gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 (working copy)
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" } }
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using peeling"
1 "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align } } } }
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1 "vect"
{ xfail { vect_no_align } } } }
-! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
versioning." 3 "vect" { target { ilp32 && vect_no_align } } } }
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
versioning." 2 "vect" { target { ilp32 && vect_no_align } } } }
! We also expect to vectorize one loop for lp64 targets that support
! misaligned access:
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31615
