>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-109.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-109.c
> index 854c970..fb87e2c 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-109.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-109.c
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_int } */
> +/* { dg-require-effective-target { vect_int && {! vect_no_align } } } */
>
>  #include <stdarg.h>
>  #include "tree-vect.h"
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-93.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-93.c
> index 65403eb..1065a6e 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-93.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-93.c
> @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ int main (void)
>  /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 2 loops" 1 "vect" { target
> vect_no_align } } } */
>
>  /* in main: */
> -/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 0 loops" 1 "vect" { target
> vect_no_align } } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" { target
> vect_no_align } } } */
>  /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1
> "vect" { xfail { vect_no_align } } } } */
>
>  /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } } */
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> index 5290a55..190483c 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> @@ -2293,7 +2293,8 @@ proc check_effective_target_arm_little_endian { } {
>  proc check_effective_target_arm_vect_no_misalign { } {
>      return [check_no_compiler_messages arm_vect_no_misalign assembly {
>         #if !defined(__arm__) \

This is redundant.

> -           || (defined(__ARMEL__) \
> +           || (defined(__ARM_FEATURE_UNALIGNED) \
> +               && defined(__ARMEL__) \


>                 && (!defined(__thumb__) || defined(__thumb2__)))

As is this line.

I think you can restrict the check to defined(__ARM_FEATURE_UNALIGNED)
&& defined(__ARMEL__)

 __ARM_FEATURE_UNALIGNED should tell you whether unaligned access is
allowed or not, therefore you should no longer require any specific
"architectural" checks.


>         #error FOO
>         #endif
>


I'm not sure about the original intent of the tests right now.

Ramana

Reply via email to