On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Steve Ellcey <sell...@cavium.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 09:47 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Steve Ellcey <sell...@cavium.com> wrote: >> > >> > Any comments from the power and/or vectorizer folks? >> On one side I'm inclined to simplify the testsuite by adding >> --param vect-max-peeling-for-alignment=0 in addition to >> -fno-vect-cost-model we already pass and override that in the >> tests that specifically exercise peeling for alignment (do we have >> any?). >> OTOH that would remove quite some testing coverage of prologue >> peeling. >> >> So ideally testresults would be clean with both no such --param >> and that --param added... >> >> I think most of the testcases you needed to adjust have nothing >> to do with peeling for alignment thus adding this --param just for >> those (and simplifying their dump scanning accordingly) is another >> pragmatic option. >> >> Adding yet another target (vect_peel_align) is IMHO not good, >> especially as this one depends on cost tuning and not HW >> features, so it's impossible(?) to dynamically compute it >> with a test compile for example (we _do_ want a clean >> vect.exp with any vector HW / tuning switch you add). > > How about something like the following. I only fixed two of the tests, > I can follow up with more if this approach seems reasonable. I tested > this on aarch64 and x86_64.
Looks good to me. Richard. > Steve Ellcey > sell...@cavium.com > > > 2017-07-28 Steve Ellcey <sell...@cavium.com> > > PR tree-optimization/80925 > * gcc.dg/vect/no-section-anchors-vect-69.c: Add > --param vect-max-peeling-for-alignment=0 option. > Remove unaligned access and peeling checks. > * gcc.dg/vect/section-anchors-vect-69.c: Ditto.
