This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: ABI voilation

From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
To: Andrew Haley <aph-gcc at littlepinkcloud dot COM>
Cc: Dorit Nuzman <DORIT at il dot ibm dot com>, gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org, kanishk rastogi <kanishk dot 85 at gmail dot com>, Tim Prince <tprince at computer dot org>
Date: 09 Oct 2007 08:42:15 -0700
Subject: Re: ABI voilation
References: <18186.9994.410945.116940@zebedee.pink> <OFA1056C9E.2F1F3611-ON8825736F.002E7B02-8825736F.002ECFD8@il.ibm.com> <18187.22146.820756.348677@zebedee.pink>

Andrew Haley <aph-gcc@littlepinkcloud.COM> writes:

> Geer Bosch asked "Can't we just explicitly align the stack frame to
> 128-bits during the function prologue, when we know that there are
> locals that require such alignment?"  This seems so obvious that I
> can't understand why it hasn't been done.

If you don't trust your startup code, use -mstackrealign or the
force_align_arg_pointer function attribute.

We don't do it by default because it is slower and most people don't
need it.

Ian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: ABI voilation
  - From: Andrew Haley

References:
- Re: ABI voilation
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: ABI voilation
  - From: Dorit Nuzman
- Re: ABI voilation
  - From: Andrew Haley

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]