On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/04/2010 04:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> As I remembered, -mforce-drap exposed issues with register allocator.
>> ix86_force_drap is only referenced in one place in i386.c. I'd like to keep
>> it. I don't see why it can't be moved to gen
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/04/2010 04:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> As I remembered, -mforce-drap exposed issues with register allocator.
>> ix86_force_drap is only referenced in one place in i386.c. I'd like to keep
>> it. I don't see why it can't be moved to gen
On 10/04/2010 04:24 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> As I remembered, -mforce-drap exposed issues with register allocator.
> ix86_force_drap is only referenced in one place in i386.c. I'd like to keep
> it. I don't see why it can't be moved to generic. It may expose problems
> for other targets.
I doubt very
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/02/2010 04:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> MIN_STACK_BOUNDARY
>>> (undocumented; local to i386 atm)
>>> -- appears to be the ABI specified stack boundary, i.e.
>>> the minimum that must be in place at a call site. This
>>> somehow di
> > Your proposal doesn't make this problem any worse, if anything it's
> > better because we don't have to device between S_B and
> > PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY. I'm just noting that documenting this as a
> > hardware property is at best misleading.
>
> Well, I'm hoping to document that it *is* a h
On 10/02/2010 04:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> MIN_STACK_BOUNDARY
>> (undocumented; local to i386 atm)
>> -- appears to be the ABI specified stack boundary, i.e.
>> the minimum that must be in place at a call site. This
>> somehow differs from I_S_B due to proliferation of
>> command-line options.
On 10/04/2010 11:00 AM, Paul Brook wrote:
> Your proposal doesn't make this problem any worse, if anything it's better
> because we don't have to device between S_B and PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY. I'm
> just noting that documenting this as a hardware property is at best
> misleading.
Well, I'm ho
> I would like to reduce this to
>
> STACK_BOUNDARY
>
> -- minimum alignment enforced by hardware.
>...
> -- unchanged
This may be determined by factors other than hardware. For example the ARM
EABI requires that the stack be 8-byte aligned at public entry points. However
within a functio
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Currently we have
>
> STACK_BOUNDARY
> -- minimum alignment enforced by hardware.
>
> PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY
> -- a preserved alignment greater than what the hw enforces
> (defaults to STACK_BOUNDARY)
>
> INCOMING_STACK_BOUNDARY
> --
