https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
Christophe Lyon <clyon at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #21 from Christophe Lyon <clyon at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #19)
> Author: sje
> Date: Mon Jul 31 21:44:34 2017
> New Revision: 250752
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250752&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> 2017-07-31 Steve Ellcey <sell...@cavium.com>
>
> PR tree-optimization/80925
> * gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c: Add
> --param vect-max-peeling-for-alignment=0 option.
> Remove unaligned access and peeling checks.
> * gcc.dg/vect/section-anchors-vect-69.c: Ditto.
>
> Modified:
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/section-anchors-vect-69.c
I think this change caused regressions on armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf
--with-cpu=cortex-a9 --with-fpu=neon-fp16 (works OK --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16-fp16)
