This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [PATCH] PR target/18916; Function arg passing mem align fixes.


On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 09:49:19PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Is it OK to go back to using "0" as the alignment, or would you prefer
> something like MIN (TYPE_ALIGN (data->passed_type), BITS_PER_WORD) intead?
> I suppose another alternative would be to tweak move_block_from_reg
> to use unaligned stores, but that would be a code-quality regression.

I'm just discussing this with Steven Ellecy.  I think we want both
move_block_from_reg fixed and some tweak to the alignment here.  I'd
suggested something based off LOCAL_ALIGNMENT, but using a MAX there
might be just as good.


r~


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