This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH/RFC] ARM -- Implement ATPCS stack alignment rules
- From: Jason R Thorpe <thorpej at wasabisystems dot com>
- To: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 22:44:52 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] ARM -- Implement ATPCS stack alignment rules
- Organization: Wasabi Systems, Inc.
- References: <20020906154010.V503@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <200209091211.g89CBqe11027@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
...longjmp'ing back to an old thread...
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 01:11:52PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> You also need to test that -mthumb does not regress either, since you are
> making changes to the thumb code as well.
Sigh, where does the time go... anyway, my arm-elf sim test environment
now runs with and without -mthumb ... the patch shows no regressions. A
run without TARGET_ATPCS passed, and a run with TARGET_ATPCS forced also
passed (run against a newlib, etc. which were compiled with the baseline
compiler). A run with a newlib compiled with a forced-TARGET_ATPCS will
churn away overnight.
> > + /* Calculate the size of the stack frame, taking into account any
> > + padding that is required to ensure stack-alignment. */
> > +
> > + HOST_WIDE_INT
> > + arm_get_frame_size ()
> > + {
> > + int regno;
>
> This function needs to be rewritten to make use of
> arm_compute_save_reg_mask and arm_compute_save_reg0_reg12_mask.
Ok, let me make sure I understand this correctly; we want to simply
use the arm_compute_save_reg_mask return value to compute the saved-regs
space rather than computing that mask ourselves, but no other changes?
--
-- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>