This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: remaining new darwin regressions



On Jan 21, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:


Hello!

Sure, in i386/darwin.h we have:

/* Since we'll never want a stack boundary less aligned than 128 bits
  we need the extra work here otherwise bits of gcc get very grumpy
  when we ask for lower alignment.  We could just reject values less
  than 128 bits for Darwin, but it's easier to up the alignment if
  it's below the minimum.  */
#undef PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY
#define PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY                        \
 MAX (STACK_BOUNDARY, ix86_preferred_stack_boundary)

This selects the maximal alignment to be 128 (16-bytes), the testcase works for all alignments of 16-bytes or less. For more aligning, I think that MAX, should be just a MIN:

Er, no.


MAX(X,Y) macro selects the higher of two values, i.e.:

#define MIN(X,Y) ((X) < (Y) ? (X) : (Y))
#define MAX(X,Y) ((X) > (Y) ? (X) : (Y))

(The definition is in system.h).

So, we never go below 128.

Agreed. We cannot go below 128 bits on darwin. Any change that allows that to happen is incorrect.


-eric


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