Re: altivec patches

[Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Geoff" == Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> writes:

 >> > > + #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.
 >> 
 >> Remember that STACK_BOUNDARY != PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY, and that the
 >> later does not help you unless you also have code to enforce stack
 >> alignment, like we're supposed to have for x86 vector code.

 > Here I was talking about BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT only.  Changing
 > STACK_BOUNDARY is of course an ABI change.

Woh, my bad.  Ok, biggest_alignment remains as is.  Nothing changed
from my last post then.

Still waiting approval on patch, and guidance on DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS.

Aldy