On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:46:26AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> So, is http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg02129.html >> >> ok for trunk then (alone or with additional sorry, incremental or not?)? >> >> I believe it does just that. >> > >> > This patch is WRONG. >> > >> > -- >> > H.J. >> >> You will run into the same ICE with >> >> -mincoming-stack-boundary=2 -msse2 -O2 -m32 >> >> in a leaf function which needs DImode spill/fill. > > So are you arguing for changing > + /* Disable STV if -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 - the needed > + stack realignment will be extra cost the pass doesn't take into > + account and the pass can't realign the stack. */ > + if (ix86_preferred_stack_boundary < 64) > + opts->x_target_flags &= ~MASK_STV; > to > + /* Disable STV if -m{preferred,incoming}-stack-boundary=2 - the needed > + stack realignment will be extra cost the pass doesn't take into > + account and the pass can't realign the stack. */ > + if (ix86_preferred_stack_boundary < 64 > + || ix86_incoming_stack_boundary < 64) > + opts->x_target_flags &= ~MASK_STV; > I'm fine with that. >
There are many checks/asserts for stack alignment. At minimum, we should assert STV is off in ix86_minimum_alignment before returning 32 for DImode. -- H.J.
