> Here's a revised version along these lines, OK for mainline after testing?
>
>
> PR middle-end/78468
> * emit-rtl.c (init_emit): Add ??? comment for problematic alignment
> settings of the virtual registers.
>
> Revert again
> 2016-08-23 Dominik Vogt
> I'd say let's not have a middle ground - this stuff is sufficiently
> brain-twisting that I'd rather go back to a known working state. If
> there was an error in the previous patch, let's roll it back until we
> fully understand the situation.
Here's a revised version along these lines, OK for
[Dave replied privately that PA-RISC is OK too].
> I'd say let's not have a middle ground - this stuff is sufficiently
> brain-twisting that I'd rather go back to a known working state. If
> there was an error in the previous patch, let's roll it back until we
> fully understand the situation.
> I'd say let's not have a middle ground - this stuff is sufficiently
> brain-twisting that I'd rather go back to a known working state. If
> there was an error in the previous patch, let's roll it back until we
> fully understand the situation.
In fact it's not exactly a middle ground; it's
On 01/27/2017 06:43 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 01/27/2017 01:02 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
The attached
patch is a middle ground between the previously working and currently
broken
situations: if the back-end defines STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET, then the
middle-end
assumes that STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET
On 01/27/2017 01:02 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
The attached
patch is a middle ground between the previously working and currently broken
situations: if the back-end defines STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET, then the middle-end
assumes that STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET maintains the alignment; if it doesn't,
which
Hi,
this is the regression introduced on 32-bit SPARC by this change:
2016-11-18 Dominik Vogt
Re-apply after PR bootstrap/77359 is fixed:
2016-08-23 Dominik Vogt
* explow.c (get_dynamic_stack_size): Take known