> FX Coudert wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I reviewed this afternoon the postings from the gcc-testresults
> > mailing-list for the past month, and we have a couple of gfortran
> > testsuite failures showing up on various targets. Could people with
> > access to said targets (possibly maintainers) please file PRs in
> > bugzilla for each testcase, reporting the error message and/or
> > backtrace? (I'd be happy to be added to the Cc list of these)
> >
> > * ia64-suse-linux-gnu: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times Alignment of
> access
> forced using peeling 1
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/vect-4.f90 -O scan-tree-dump-times Vectorizing
> an unali
> gned access 1
>
These tests should xfail on "vect_no_align" targets. On targets that
support misaligned accesses we use peeling to align two datarefs, and
generate a misaligned memory-access for a third dataref. But on targets
that do not support misaligned accesses I expect we just use versioning
with runtime alignment test. Does the following pass for you (I just added
"{ xfail vect_no_align }" to the two failing tests)?
Index: vect-4.f90
===================================================================
--- vect-4.f90 (revision 123409)
+++ vect-4.f90 (working copy)
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
END
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" } }
-! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
peeling" 1 "vect" } }
-! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1
"vect" } }
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Alignment of access forced using
peeling" 1 "vect" { xfail vect_no_align } } }
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Vectorizing an unaligned access" 1
"vect" { xfail vect_no_align } } }
! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "accesses have the same alignment." 1
"vect" } }
! { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "vect" } }
> This happens on all reported ia64 targets, including mine. What is
> expected here? There is no vectorization on ia64, no reason for
> peeling.
apparently there is vectorization taking place because the first test
passes:
'scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" '
dorit
> The compilation has no problem, and there is no report
> generated. As far as I know, the vectorization options are ignored.
> Without unrolling, of course, gfortran doesn't optimize the loop at all,
> but I assume that's a different question.
