From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23033 invoked by alias); 23 Dec 2008 23:34:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 22581 invoked by uid 48); 23 Dec 2008 23:32:51 -0000 Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20081223233251.22580.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/38395] emit_library_call_value_1 calls emit_push_insn() with type=NULL_TREE In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-12/txt/msg02157.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-23 23:32 ------- So the question comes what target has a mode where STRICT_ALIGNMENT is going to be true and the alignment of the stack is going to be less than the alignment of that mode? I think this is invalid. Now x86 has a mode who's alignment is less than PARM_BOUNDARY but that is because the ABI was set in stone before those registers was added. Do you have a target which this effects? Is there a reason why the stack alignment is less than the largest required alignment of the modes? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38395