On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 11:30 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2012, at 7:56 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote: > >> There seems to be tacit agreement that the vector tests should use > >> -fno-common on all targets to avoid the recent spate of failures (see > >> discussion in 52571 and 52603). > > > >> OK for trunk? > > > > Ok. Any other solution I think will be real work and we shouldn't loose > > the testing between now and then by not having the test cases working. > > Ian, you are the "source" of all of these problems. While I did not notice > any degradations in SPEC (on x86) with handling commons "correctly" > now, the fact > that our testsuite needs -fno-common to make things vectorizable shows > that users might be impacted negatively by this, which is only a real problem > in corner cases. Why can the link editor not promote the definitions > alignment > when merging with a common with bigger alignment? > > Richard. >
Follow-up question: Should -ftree-vectorize imply -fno-common in the short term? Thanks, Bill
