This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: PATCH: PR target/40838: gcc shouldn't assume that the stack is aligned


On 10/15/2009 10:59 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
I think that we have the same situation here as was with the infamous -mcld
option. A specific functionality is needed for compatibility with some
[broken] code and this functionality has non-negligible impact on the
performance. AFAICS, there will always be opinions for this functionality as
Well, performance impact of my patch on SPEC CPU 2006 is pretty much
in the noise.

well as opinions against it.

I propose that we implement new option -mhard-stackrealign [we can bikeshed
about this option name a bit ;) ] with corresponding
--enable-hard-stackrealign as a configure option. This way, both groups can
have whatever they prefer - compatibility vs. performance.

Looking at -mcld discussions, is this acceptable solution?

Is --enable-hard-stackrealign enabled by default. If not, it doesn't
buy much.

No, it won't be.


Uros.



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