------- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-04 19:33 ------- (In reply to comment #6) > I think the thread about the patch became confused. > > First, Janis essentially approved the testsuite patch.
OK, I've re-submitted the patch to the mailing list and will commit it tomorrow if nobody objects. Thanks. > > Second, Martin commented that the failure probably was due to MOVE_RATIO not > defined. The statement caused some misunderstanding. MOVE_RATIO does not > need > to be defined and the failure is not caused by a missing definition. The > default value of MOVE_RATIO (used by PPC and ARM) cause the heuristic to > disable the optimization being tested. > > If the optimization is not expected to occur on some platforms, then the > testcase should be disabled as implemented by the patch or the testcase > explicitly should set some gcc param that ensures the optimization will occur > on all targets. > Well, MOVE_RATIO defines the ratio of costs of different methods of copying memory. Assuming that the default value is indeed the correct one for those platforms, it is most probably OK that SRA decides not to totally scalarize the aggregate in the testcase in question. But that is really what the platform maintainers should examine (or at least someone who knows the platforms well enough should do it). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855
