On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 02:07:15PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > After r9-1623-gc518c1025b435e1c593a745036fc9b8ed04c5819 the code was > changed to: > > - if (align_jumps_max_skip <= 0) > - align_jumps_max_skip = 15; > - if (align_loops_max_skip <= 0) > - align_loops_max_skip = 15; > + > + if (flag_align_jumps && !str_align_jumps) > + str_align_jumps = "16"; > + if (flag_align_loops && !str_align_loops) > + str_align_loops = "16"; > > which for situation where align_* was 0 caused that max_skip didn't play > any role. > My code wrongly changed that to str_align_jumps, which is now the was which > includes > both alignment (and max skip). The hunk should not be here.
Do you have a testsuite test as well? Or, how else was this checked? > PR target/93800 > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_option_override_internal): > Remove set of str_align_loops and str_align_jumps as these > should be set in previous 2 conditions in the function. Okay for trunk, maybe with an added test. Thanks! Segher
