This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

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

Re: Alpha vs. new ABI

To: Jeff Sturm <jeff dot sturm at commerceone dot com>
Subject: Re: Alpha vs. new ABI
From: Alexandre Petit-Bianco <apbianco at cygnus dot com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:16:37 -0800 (PST)
Cc: java at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <140D21516EC2D3119EE700902787664401E3A887@hplex1.hpl.hp.com><87lmrqi61g.fsf@creche.redhat.com><3A79C75C.375BCBFC@commerceone.com><14970.28595.365557.587458@deliverance.cygnus.com><3A7ACA0E.C6440276@commerceone.com><14975.37526.839720.180301@deliverance.cygnus.com><3A800C38.25809E23@commerceone.com>
Reply-To: apbianco at cygnus dot com

Jeff Sturm writes:

> Can we safely ignore these macros?  

The C++ compiler doesn't specifically use them. But they are used in
functions found in stor-layout.c, where I guess they are indirectly
used by various front-ends (through the middle end), when necessary.

> I'm wondering now about arrays of double on i386 without
> -malign-double (or is that the default now?).

We don't seem to build our world with -malign-double. I built the
runtime with -malign-double and the tests on double are still passing.

So I'll check yesterday's patch soon.

./A

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Alpha vs. new ABI
  - From: Alexandre Petit-Bianco

References:
- Re: Alpha vs. new ABI
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: Alpha vs. new ABI
  - From: Jeff Sturm
- Re: Alpha vs. new ABI
  - From: Alexandre Petit-Bianco
- Re: Alpha vs. new ABI
  - From: Jeff Sturm
- Re: Alpha vs. new ABI
  - From: Alexandre Petit-Bianco
- Re: Alpha vs. new ABI
  - From: Jeff Sturm

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