http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51693
--- Comment #6 from Michael Zolotukhin <michael.v.zolotukhin at gmail dot com> 2011-12-28 16:19:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > > In vect-peel-3.c we actually assume that vector length is 16 byte. Here is > > the > > loop body: > > suma += ia[i]; > > sumb += ib[i+5]; > > sumc += ic[i+1]; > > When vector-size is 16, then peeling can make two of three accesses aligned, > > but when vector size is 32 that's impossible. That's why using > > vector_sizes_32B_16B might be correct here. > > Ah, now I understand. I was confused by vect_aligned_arrays, and it's > irrelevant here, right? Actually yes, you're right. I think, ideally, vect_aligned_arrays should be somehow checked in such tests, as in them we assume that array's beginning is aligned - but that's not the rootcause of the xpasses. > Yes, vector_sizes_32B_16B seems to be ok in that case. Other two tests (vect-multitypes-1.c and no-section-anchors-vect-69.c) look like having the same problem - are you ok for similar fix for them too, i.e. is patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01600/vec-tests-avx2_fixes-7.patch ok for trunk? Thanks, Michael
