> I'd say let's not have a middle ground - this stuff is sufficiently > brain-twisting that I'd rather go back to a known working state. If > there was an error in the previous patch, let's roll it back until we > fully understand the situation.
In fact it's not exactly a middle ground; it's already almost a roll back since only PowerPC, PA-RISC and s390 define STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET. PowerPC and s390 are OK according to their maintainers, so we're left with only PA-RISC. IIUC the question boils down to whether STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET garantees that (stack pointer + STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET) is always aligned to STACK_BOUNDARY, which is 2 * BITS_PER_WORD on PA-RISC. Dave, can you give the answer here? -- Eric Botcazou
