I am ok with both changes but I tried to build some test cases, and it
seems the changes are caused by options update, not caused by the
riscv_support_vector_misalignment update? so I would like to see the
testcase should split out into a separated patch.
> +/* Return true if the vector misalignment factor is supported by the
> + target. */
> bool
> riscv_support_vector_misalignment (machine_mode mode,
> const_tree type ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
> int misalignment,
> bool is_packed ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
> {
> - if (TARGET_VECTOR)
> - {
> - if (STRICT_ALIGNMENT)
> - {
> - /* Return if movmisalign pattern is not supported for this mode. */
> - if (optab_handler (movmisalign_optab, mode) == CODE_FOR_nothing)
> - return false;
> -
> - /* Misalignment factor is unknown at compile time. */
> - if (misalignment == -1)
> - return false;
> - }
> - return true;
> - }
> + /* TODO: For RVV scalable vector auto-vectorization, we should allow
> + movmisalign<mode> pattern to handle misalign data movement to unblock
> + possible auto-vectorization.
>
> + RVV VLS auto-vectorization or SIMD auto-vectorization can be supported
> here
> + in the future. */
> return default_builtin_support_vector_misalignment (mode, type,
> misalignment,
> is_packed);
> }
Should we have some corresponding change on autovec.md like this?
diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/autovec.md b/gcc/config/riscv/autovec.md
index f1c5ff5951bf..c2873201d82e 100644
--- a/gcc/config/riscv/autovec.md
+++ b/gcc/config/riscv/autovec.md
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@
(define_expand "movmisalign<mode>"
[(set (match_operand:V 0 "nonimmediate_operand")
(match_operand:V 1 "general_operand"))]
- "TARGET_VECTOR"
+ "TARGET_VECTOR && !STRICT_ALIGNMENT"
{
/* Equivalent to a normal move for our purpooses. */
emit_move_insn (operands[0], operands[1]);
