On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Eric Christopher wrote:
- The change only affects rare cases: passing a struct by value that is
* not a float/vector special case, and
* has a size of 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 bytes, and
* has an
On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Eric Christopher wrote:
>>> - The change only affects rare cases: passing a struct by value that is
>>> * not a float/vector special case, and
>>> * has a size of 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 bytes, and
>>> * has an alignment requirement of 16 bytes or more
>> I copied the
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> last year, Bill added a patch to address PR 57949 by aligning aggregates
>> requiring at least 128-bit alignment at a quadword boundary in the
>> parameter save area:
>>
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Hello,
>
> last year, Bill added a patch to address PR 57949 by aligning aggregates
> requiring at least 128-bit alignment at a quadword boundary in the
> parameter save area:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00803.html
>
> Un
Hello,
last year, Bill added a patch to address PR 57949 by aligning aggregates
requiring at least 128-bit alignment at a quadword boundary in the
parameter save area:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00803.html
Unfortunately, to implement this check, Bill's patch used a pre-existing
