http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
--- Comment #2 from Ira Rosen <irar at il dot ibm.com> 2011-12-28 12:27:18 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I though that if {vect_aligned_arrays} isn't true, than arrays could
> be aligned even after peeling - that's why I added such check.
Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. What do you mean by aligned after
peeling? Could you please explain what exactly happens on AVX (a dump file with
-fdump-tree-vect-details would be the best thing).
> Unfortunately, I can't reproduce these fails, as I have no PowerPC. By
> the way, if arrays aren't aligned on Power, why does GCC produce such
> messages - does it really try to peel something?
The arrays in the tests are aligned. I said that I think that we can't promise
that all the arrays are vector aligned on power. BTW, we can peel for unknown
misalignment as well.
> Maybe we should just
> refine the check?
> Anyway, if everything is ok with the tests (in original version) and
> with gcc itself - we could check not for vect_aligned_arrays, but for
> AVX. Please check
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01600.html and the
> attached to that letter patch.
I think that everything was ok, but I don't think that using vect_sizes_32B_16B
is a good idea. I would really like to see an AVX vect dump for eg.
vect-peel-3.c.
Thanks,
Ira
>
> Thanks, Michael
>
