[Bug middle-end/78468] [8 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

["ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468

--- Comment #41 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> If you cannot guarantee the alignment of the pointers to STACK_BOUNDARY then
> STACK_BOUNDARY is incorrect.

No, it is correct as per the definition:

 -- Macro: STACK_BOUNDARY
     Define this macro to the minimum alignment enforced by hardware
     for the stack pointer on this machine.  The definition is a C
     expression for the desired alignment (measured in bits).  This
     value is used as a default if `PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY' is not
     defined.  On most machines, this should be the same as
     `PARM_BOUNDARY'.

> GCC uses the STACK_BOUNDARY guarantee in optimizations so it is essential to 
> get this right if you want correct code  generation.

No, you're interpolating, please read the entire discussion.  Your change is
based on a premise that is wrong at least on 32-bit SPARC.