This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: altivec patches
On Wed, 2001-11-07 at 02:16, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 01:58:06PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote:
> > > - #define STACK_BOUNDARY (TARGET_32BIT ? 64 : 128)
> > > + #define STACK_BOUNDARY ((TARGET_32BIT && !TARGET_ALTIVEC_ABI) ? 64 : 128)
> > > - #define BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT 64
> > > + #define BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT (TARGET_ALTIVEC_ABI ? 128 : 64)
> >
> > I think you _don't_ want this to be dependent on the ABI. Changing
> > this isn't an ABI change (I hope!), which is good because...
>
> Yes it is. REGNO_POINTER_ALIGN(STACK_POINTER_REGNUM) == STACK_BOUNDARY.
ok, i have reverted to my original code then:
#define BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT (TARGET_ALTIVEC_ABI ? 128 : 64)
> > The DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS change seems to have gone away, which is not
> > quite right: it has to happen _only when the ABI is 'altivec'_.
>
> I _think_ you don't have to worry about this any longer. The ia64
> eh library interface does not expose the number of registers
> involved.
>
> We might ought to have checks added to die more gracefully if the
> target adds registers, since we do statically allocate this space
> and older libgcc would not be able to unwind for newer gcc code.
so can i just up the # of DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS without any bad side
effects?
--
Aldy Hernandez E-mail: aldyh@redhat.com
Professional Gypsy
Red Hat, Inc.