http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45962
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-10-12 21:55:26 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #8) > > I have to reopen this: the SEGV ICE is gone, but no regressions were > > fixed... > > These aren't technically regressions; these tests were never run previously. > I'm certain you'll find that ... > > (In reply to comment #9) > > I think I'm going to use gcc.c-torture/execute/simd-5.c at -O0. > > I'll compare r165239 to (r165240 plus your commit at r165382), ok? > > ... these tests fail with r165239 too, if you run them by hand. If you > just compare gcc.sum files of course they'll appear as new failures. Incorrect. I don't see what makes you say that. > > #define STACK_BOUNDARY \ > > (TARGET_STACK_ALIGN ? (TARGET_ALIGN_BY_32 ? 32 : 16) : 8) > > (i.e. 8 for cris-elf default.) > > This is definitely wrong, according to the documentation in the opt file. Uh... what? Ok, it's been a while since I wrote that part (which you can see by the comment at the top of that macro!) so I might have to revisit that but any such observation is incidental, because... > You'd either have to multilib on this option, or implement the full stack > re-alignment scheme supported by i386. Unless you multilib: > > STACK_BOUNDARY should be BITS_PER_UNIT always. ...it is; constant 8, for the purpose of this PR, as none of the options are active. Let's see how we can best proceed here.
