On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 07:10:11PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:01:14AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 09/30/2015 06:45 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > >On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 02:41:36PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > >>On 09/29/2015 11:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > >>>
> > >
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:01:14AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 06:45 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 02:41:36PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >>On 09/29/2015 11:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>>
> >>>This code from builtins.c:
> >>>
> >>> /* If we don't need too much ali
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 02:41:36PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/29/2015 11:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> >This code from builtins.c:
> >
> > /* If we don't need too much alignment, we'll have been guaranteed
> > proper alignment by get_trampoline_type. */
> > if (TRAMPOLINE_ALIGNMEN
On 09/29/2015 11:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
This code from builtins.c:
/* If we don't need too much alignment, we'll have been guaranteed
proper alignment by get_trampoline_type. */
if (TRAMPOLINE_ALIGNMENT <= STACK_BOUNDARY)
return tramp;
It's entirely conceivable that TRAMPOLI
This code from builtins.c:
/* If we don't need too much alignment, we'll have been guaranteed
proper alignment by get_trampoline_type. */
if (TRAMPOLINE_ALIGNMENT <= STACK_BOUNDARY)
return tramp;
It's entirely conceivable that TRAMPOLINE_ALIGNMENT will be the same as
STACK_BOUND