https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99626
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Doesn't FAIL on i686-linux. I wonder if it is SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS or something similar that for powerpc64 -m32 causes a lot of memcpy calls not to be folded. grep memcpy strlenopt-73.c.023t.ssa memcpy (pa_41, iftmp.0_21, 17); memcpy (pa_49, iftmp.2_22, 17); memcpy (pa_56, iftmp.4_23, 16); memcpy (pa_63, iftmp.6_24, 15); memcpy (pa_78, iftmp.10_26, 32); memcpy (pa_85, iftmp.12_27, 31); memcpy (pa_92, iftmp.14_28, 30); is the same between i686 and powerpc64 -m64, while for powerpc64 -m32 shows grep memcpy strlenopt-73.c.023t.ssa memcpy (pa_41, iftmp.0_21, 17); memcpy (pa_49, iftmp.2_22, 17); memcpy (pa_56, iftmp.4_23, 16); memcpy (pa_63, iftmp.6_24, 15); memcpy (pa_78, iftmp.10_26, 32); memcpy (pa_85, iftmp.12_27, 31); memcpy (pa_92, iftmp.14_28, 30); memcpy (pa_25, iftmp.20_13, 8); memcpy (pa_33, iftmp.22_14, 8); memcpy (pa_40, iftmp.24_15, 8); memcpy (pa_47, iftmp.26_16, 8); memcpy (pa_54, iftmp.28_17, 8); memcpy (pa_61, iftmp.30_18, 8); The test_copy_cond_unequal_length_i128 has the following misleading comment: #if __i386__ && __SIZEOF_INT128__ == 16 /* The following tests assume GCC transforms the memcpy calls into int128_t assignments which it does only on targets that define the MOVE_MAX macro to 16. That's only s390 and i386 with int128_t support. */ I bet it is never tested, because __int128 isn't supported on 32-bit targets. But __i386__ is defined only on 32-bit x86, so perhaps it meant to use __x86_64__ define instead? And test_copy_cond_unequal_length_i64 is essentially the same except with smaller size, so it again relies on targets transforming the memcpy calls to long long assignments. And there is a lot of targets that define MOVE_MAX to 4 or smaller: config/arc/arc.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/arm/arm.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/c6x/c6x.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/cr16/cr16.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/cris/cris.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/csky/csky.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/ft32/ft32.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/h8300/h8300.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/iq2000/iq2000.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/lm32/lm32.h:#define MOVE_MAX UNITS_PER_WORD config/m32c/m32c.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/m32r/m32r.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/m68k/m68k.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/mcore/mcore.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/microblaze/microblaze.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/mn10300/mn10300.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/moxie/moxie.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/nds32/nds32.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/nios2/nios2.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/or1k/or1k.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/pdp11/pdp11.h:#define MOVE_MAX 2 config/rl78/rl78.h:#define MOVE_MAX 2 config/rs6000/rs6000.h:#define MOVE_MAX (! TARGET_POWERPC64 ? 4 : 8) config/rx/rx.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/sh/sh.h:#define MOVE_MAX (4) config/stormy16/stormy16.h:#define MOVE_MAX 2 config/v850/v850.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/visium/visium.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 config/xtensa/xtensa.h:#define MOVE_MAX 4 So IMNSHO that function should be compiled only on a couple of targets known to fold memcpy (, , 8); to the assignments.
