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: alignment: store_one_arg vs emit_push_insn

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 12:38:27 -0700
Subject: Re: alignment: store_one_arg vs emit_push_insn
References: <200305092334.h49NYa422781@greed.delorie.com> <20030510000312.GN23973@redhat.com> <200305100027.h4A0Ru724325@greed.delorie.com> <20030512035157.GF15866@redhat.com> <200305121816.h4CIGnm24209@greed.delorie.com>

On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 02:16:49PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Would it be sufficient if it just
> chose the minimum of the available alignment?  If so, then most of the
> "reorg" would just be commenting the new semantics.

Yes, that would be fine.


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: alignment: store_one_arg vs emit_push_insn
  - From: DJ Delorie

References:
- alignment: store_one_arg vs emit_push_insn
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: alignment: store_one_arg vs emit_push_insn
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: alignment: store_one_arg vs emit_push_insn
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: alignment: store_one_arg vs emit_push_insn
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: alignment: store_one_arg vs emit_push_insn
  - From: DJ Delorie

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