On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Richard Sandiford
<richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote:
> Another gcc.dg/vect test, another chance to play whack-a-mole
> with the target selectors. In this case I think we want
> { ! vect_no_align }. { { ! vect_no_align } || vect_hw_misalign }
> might work too, but (a) there are other tests that use vect_no_align
> on its own and (b) the point of the scan test was simply to sanity-
> check that we didn't stop vectorising, rather than to test a new
> vectorisation feature.
>
> Tested on aaarch64-linux-gnu, x86_64-linux-gnu and armeb-none-elf.
> OK for trunk and GCC 8?
OK.
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
>
> 2018-05-08 Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@linaro.org>
>
> gcc/testsuite/
> PR testsuite/85586
> * gcc.dg/vect/pr85586.c: Restrict LOOP VECTORIZED test to
> !vect_no_align.
>
> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr85586.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr85586.c 2018-05-02 08:39:59.942069849 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr85586.c 2018-05-08 09:47:33.207979464 +0100
> @@ -40,4 +40,4 @@ main (void)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "LOOP VECTORIZED" 1 "vect" { target
> vect_int } } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "LOOP VECTORIZED" 1 "vect" { target { {
> ! vect_no_align } && vect_int } } } } */
