| Message ID | 1425979088-11914-1-git-send-email-james.greenhalgh@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > Hi, > > The purpose of this test is to ensure the compiler does the right > thing when a pointer with larger assumed alignment is assigned to > a pointer with smaller assumed alignment. It checks for this with a > vector testcase expected to generate fixups for alignment. > > For ARM targets we're perfectly happy with vectors aligned to > 8-bytes, and so we don't need the fixup code, and the test fails. > > This patch forces the alignment even smaller (4-byte), which causes the > test to start PASSing on ARM. > > Tested on aarch64-none-elf, arm-none-eabi and x86_64-none-linux-gnu > to confirm no reressions elsewhere, and to confirm the patch fixes > the issue for ARM. > > Does this fixup make sense, and if it does, is it OK for trunk? Yeah - ok. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > James > > --- > 2015-03-10 James Greenhalgh <james.greenhalgh@arm.com> > > * gcc.dg/vect/pr65310.c (c): Reduce alignment to 4-bytes.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr65310.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr65310.c index 2fd51b4..91aa904 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr65310.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr65310.c @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ struct a int a[100]; }; typedef struct a b __attribute__ ((aligned (32))); -typedef struct a c __attribute__ ((aligned (8))); +typedef struct a c __attribute__ ((aligned (4))); int t(b *a) {