On 10/04/2010 04:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
As I remembered, -mforce-drap exposed issues with register allocator.
ix86_force_drap is only referenced in one place in i386.c. I'd like to keep
it. I don't see why it can't be moved to generic. It may expose problems
for other targets.
I doubt very
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/04/2010 04:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
As I remembered, -mforce-drap exposed issues with register allocator.
ix86_force_drap is only referenced in one place in i386.c. I'd like to keep
it. I don't see why it can't be
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/04/2010 04:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
As I remembered, -mforce-drap exposed issues with register allocator.
ix86_force_drap is only referenced in one place in i386.c. I'd like to keep
it. I don't see why it can't be
I would like to reduce this to
STACK_BOUNDARY
-- minimum alignment enforced by hardware.
...
-- unchanged
This may be determined by factors other than hardware. For example the ARM
EABI requires that the stack be 8-byte aligned at public entry points. However
within a function the
On 10/04/2010 11:00 AM, Paul Brook wrote:
Your proposal doesn't make this problem any worse, if anything it's better
because we don't have to device between S_B and PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY. I'm
just noting that documenting this as a hardware property is at best
misleading.
Well, I'm
On 10/02/2010 04:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
MIN_STACK_BOUNDARY
(undocumented; local to i386 atm)
-- appears to be the ABI specified stack boundary, i.e.
the minimum that must be in place at a call site. This
somehow differs from I_S_B due to proliferation of
command-line options.
It is
Your proposal doesn't make this problem any worse, if anything it's
better because we don't have to device between S_B and
PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY. I'm just noting that documenting this as a
hardware property is at best misleading.
Well, I'm hoping to document that it *is* a hardware
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/02/2010 04:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
MIN_STACK_BOUNDARY
(undocumented; local to i386 atm)
-- appears to be the ABI specified stack boundary, i.e.
the minimum that must be in place at a call site. This
somehow
Currently we have
STACK_BOUNDARY
-- minimum alignment enforced by hardware.
PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY
-- a preserved alignment greater than what the hw enforces
(defaults to STACK_BOUNDARY)
INCOMING_STACK_BOUNDARY
-- an alignment provided by callers on function entry.
(defaults to
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
Currently we have
STACK_BOUNDARY
-- minimum alignment enforced by hardware.
PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY
-- a preserved alignment greater than what the hw enforces
(defaults to STACK_BOUNDARY)
INCOMING_STACK_BOUNDARY
10 matches
Mail list logo
