On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Janis Johnson wrote:
> Tests gcc.target/powerpc/20020118-1.c and
> gcc.c-torture/execute/nest-align-1.c sometimes fail because they expect
> a stack alignment that is greater than that required for powerpc-eabi.
> This patch forces stack alignment to 128 bits by pas
On 07/08/2013 09:47 PM, Janis Johnson wrote:
Tests gcc.target/powerpc/20020118-1.c and
gcc.c-torture/execute/nest-align-1.c sometimes fail because they expect
a stack alignment that is greater than that required for powerpc-eabi.
This patch forces stack alignment to 128 bits by passing "-mno-eabi
On Jul 8, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Janis Johnson wrote:
> Tests gcc.target/powerpc/20020118-1.c and
> gcc.c-torture/execute/nest-align-1.c sometimes fail because they expect
> a stack alignment that is greater than that required for powerpc-eabi.
> This patch forces stack alignment to 128 bits by passin
Tests gcc.target/powerpc/20020118-1.c and
gcc.c-torture/execute/nest-align-1.c sometimes fail because they expect
a stack alignment that is greater than that required for powerpc-eabi.
This patch forces stack alignment to 128 bits by passing "-mno-eabi".
Is this OK for mainline and the 4.8 branch,
