"Hu, Jiangping" writes:
>> If there isn't anywhere that handles zero in the way that the documentation
>> implies (i.e. with -falign-loops=0 being equivalent to -falign-loops) then
>> maybe
>> we should instead change the documentation to match the actual behaviour.
>>
> Yes, I confirmed in sourc
> Sorry for the slow response on this. Like you say, it seems to be a pretty
> pervasive problem. In fact I couldn't see anywhere that actually treated -
> falign-foo=0 as anything other than -falign-foo=1.
>
> Technically using an alignment of one for zero is within what the
> documentation all
Hu Jiangping writes:
> Hi,
>
> This patch deal with the -falign-X=0 options. According to man pages,
> if zero is specified, a machine-dependent default value should be used.
> But in fact, zero was used in internal process, it is inconsistent.
>
> Tested on aarch64-linux cross compiler, Is that O
PING.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gcc-patches On Behalf Of Hu
> Jiangping
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 3:55 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH] target: fix default value checking of x_str_align_functions
> in
> aarch64.c
>
> Hi,
>
&
Hi,
This patch deal with the -falign-X=0 options. According to man pages,
if zero is specified, a machine-dependent default value should be used.
But in fact, zero was used in internal process, it is inconsistent.
Tested on aarch64-linux cross compiler, Is that OK?
BTW, the similar problems exis
