On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:25:32PM -0500, Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> > > I see. Provided a local is passed in a register to a
> > non-vararg function, it is still OK to align the stack.
> >
> > Given that we don't support 4 byte aligned stack at all with XMM
> > regisrers, I would prefer to incre
> > I see. Provided a local is passed in a register to a
> non-vararg function, it is still OK to align the stack.
>
> Given that we don't support 4 byte aligned stack at all with XMM
> regisrers, I would prefer to increase Linux/x86 stack alignment to
> 16 byte. People can use 4 byte alignment
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 06:38:52PM -0500, Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> > > > > > We have several choices for stack alignment requirement
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Leave it unchanged. Gcc can do
> > > > > > a. Nothing. Let the program crash.
> > > > > > b. Align stack to 16byte if XMM registe
> > > > > We have several choices for stack alignment requirement
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Leave it unchanged. Gcc can do
> > > > > a. Nothing. Let the program crash.
> > > > > b. Align stack to 16byte if XMM registers are
> used locally and
> > > > >aren't passed down as fu
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:17:39PM -0500, Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> > > > We have several choices for stack alignment requirement
> > > >
> > > > 1. Leave it unchanged. Gcc can do
> > > > a. Nothing. Let the program crash.
> > > > b. Align stack to 16byte if XMM registers are used
> > > We have several choices for stack alignment requirement
> > >
> > > 1. Leave it unchanged. Gcc can do
> > > a. Nothing. Let the program crash.
> > > b. Align stack to 16byte if XMM registers are used locally and
> > >aren't passed down as function arguments.
> >
> > Why not
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 04:08:14PM -0500, Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> HJ,
>
> > We have several choices for stack alignment requirement
> >
> > 1. Leave it unchanged. Gcc can do
> > a. Nothing. Let the program crash.
> > b. Align stack to 16byte if XMM registers are used locally and
> >
HJ,
> We have several choices for stack alignment requirement
>
> 1. Leave it unchanged. Gcc can do
> a. Nothing. Let the program crash.
> b. Align stack to 16byte if XMM registers are used locally and
>aren't passed down as function arguments.
Why not so if the XMM regi
> There are 2 different, but related questions:
>
> 1. Should Linux require gcc generates 16byte aligned stack?
> 2. How should Linux support 4byte alignment code?
Independently of Linux, GCC could align the stack at 16 bytes and still be
compliant with the psABI. It could also wrap memalign as
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 06:43:50PM +0200, Sandro Tolaini wrote:
>
> On 07/giu/2006, at 18:22, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >The x86 psABI is very old and doesn't cover XMM registers. I'd like to
> >update x86 Linux calling convention for XMM register usage. I am not
> >sure if I should update stack alignm
On 07/giu/2006, at 18:22, H. J. Lu wrote:
The x86 psABI is very old and doesn't cover XMM registers. I'd like to
update x86 Linux calling convention for XMM register usage. I am not
sure if I should update stack alignment requirement.
Maybe you'll want to check how this is handled in Darwin/x
The x86 psABI is very old and doesn't cover XMM registers. I'd like to
update x86 Linux calling convention for XMM register usage. I am not
sure if I should update stack alignment requirement.
The x86 psABI only requires 4 byte aligned stack. But the current gcc
assumes that the satck of a functio
12 matches
Mail list logo
