On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:46:41AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The following patch makes it build again, will commit as obvious if it
> passes bootstrap/regtest:
>
> 2018-12-21 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>
> * tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment): Use
> DR_TARGET_ALIGNMENT on dr_info rather than dr.
>
> --- gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c.jj 2018-12-21 00:40:50.000000000 +0100
> +++ gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c 2018-12-21 00:43:35.786222062 +0100
> @@ -2168,7 +2168,7 @@ vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment (loop_v
> done by doing some iterations of the non-vectorized loop. */
> if (!multiple_p (LOOP_VINFO_VECT_FACTOR (loop_vinfo)
> * DR_STEP_ALIGNMENT (dr),
> - DR_TARGET_ALIGNMENT (dr)))
> + DR_TARGET_ALIGNMENT (dr_info)))
> {
> do_versioning = false;
> break;
>
Here is what I've actually committed, some spelling errors fixed too:
2018-12-21 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
* tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment): Use
DR_TARGET_ALIGNMENT on dr_info rather than dr. Spelling fixes.
--- gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c.jj 2018-12-21 00:40:50.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c 2018-12-21 00:43:35.786222062 +0100
@@ -2163,12 +2163,12 @@ vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment (loop_v
/* Forcing alignment in the first iteration is no good if
we don't keep it across iterations. For now, just disable
versioning in this case.
- ?? We could actually unroll the loop to archive the required
- overall step alignemnt, and forcing the alignment could be
+ ?? We could actually unroll the loop to achieve the required
+ overall step alignment, and forcing the alignment could be
done by doing some iterations of the non-vectorized loop. */
if (!multiple_p (LOOP_VINFO_VECT_FACTOR (loop_vinfo)
* DR_STEP_ALIGNMENT (dr),
- DR_TARGET_ALIGNMENT (dr)))
+ DR_TARGET_ALIGNMENT (dr_info)))
{
do_versioning = false;
break;
Jakub
