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: How should _Decimal64 and _Decimal128 be aligned on stack?

From: Ben Elliston <bje at au1 dot ibm dot com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>, IA32 System V Application Binary Interface <ia32-abi at googlegroups dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:41:00 +1100
Subject: Re: How should _Decimal64 and _Decimal128 be aligned on stack?
References: <5b2c4dff-3b96-488e-9556-d84f6b65b961@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <de8d50360803211737y619b91bfl307f3845aadd67ab@mail.gmail.com> <6dc9ffc80803212100r161ee133uf3271cd02ecfbe3c@mail.gmail.com>

> DFP is beyond i386 psABI. Gcc aligns _Decimal32 to 4 byte, _Decimal64 to 8 bytes
> and _Decimal128 to 16bytes. The question is what is the best alignment for them
> when passing to a functions.

The original work I did for the x86-64 backend placed them at that
alignment because that is the required alignment for loading those
values into SSE registers.  Right?

Ben

Follow-Ups:
- Re: How should _Decimal64 and _Decimal128 be aligned on stack?
  - From: H.J. Lu

References:
- How should _Decimal64 and _Decimal128 be aligned on stack?
  - From: H.J.
- Re: How should _Decimal64 and _Decimal128 be aligned on stack?
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: How should _Decimal64 and _Decimal128 be aligned on stack?
  - From: H.J. Lu

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