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 v4][C][ADA] use function descriptors instead of trampolines in C

On Dez 17 2018, "Uecker, Martin" <Martin.Uecker@med.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:

> Am Montag, den 17.12.2018, 10:28 -0700 schrieb Jeff Law:
>> On 12/16/18 3:45 PM, Uecker, Martin wrote:
>> > But most architectures require a higher alignment anyway.
>> > Here is a list of all targets where function alignment
>> > is 1 byte:
>> > 
>> > gcc/config/avr/avr.h:#define FUNCTION_BOUNDARY 8
>> > gcc/config/i386/i386.h:#define FUNCTION_BOUNDARY 8
>> > gcc/config/m32c/m32c.h:#define FUNCTION_BOUNDARY 8
>> > gcc/config/mn10300/mn10300.h:#define FUNCTION_BOUNDARY 8
>> > gcc/config/pa/pa.h:#define FUNCTION_BOUNDARY BITS_PER_WORD
>> > gcc/config/rl78/rl78.h:#define FUNCTION_BOUNDARY 		8
>> > gcc/config/rx/rx.h:#define FUNCTION_BOUNDARY 		((rx_cpu_type == RX100 ||
>> > rx_cpu_type == RX200) ? 4 : 8)
>
> (BTW: pa was included here by mistake)

The rx config apparently confused bits and bytes.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510  2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]