This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] PR opt/6627: New target macro MINIMUM_FUNCTION_BOUNDARY
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:28:04 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR opt/6627: New target macro MINIMUM_FUNCTION_BOUNDARY
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0209282107210.21383-100000@www.eyesopen.com>
On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 09:47:18PM -0600, Roger Sayle wrote:
> My proposed untangling of this Gordian knot is to observe that the
> two requirements aren't really in conflict. Rather than fight over
> the single target macro FUNCTION_BOUNDARY, provide two macros (i)
> MINIMUM_FUNCTION_BOUNDARY for the machine minimum function alignment
> and (ii) FUNCTION_BOUNDARY for the "default" function alignment.
> If the new MINIMUM_FUNCTION_BOUNDARY isn't defined by the backend,
> it is assumed to be identical to FUNCTION_BOUNDARY.
This is incorrect. FUNCTION_BOUNDARY is the _known_ alignment
of a function. This is used during optimization.
I don't think you need a new target macro. The ability to
override the user's align_function setting is enough. If
TARGET_PTRMEMFUNC_VBIT_LOCATION == ptrmemfunc_vbit_in_pfn
then align_function must be >= 2.
r~