------- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-25 18:14 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> 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:
Are you going to submit/install your patch?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31615
