From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9022 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2009 16:24:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 8688 invoked by uid 48); 9 Jul 2009 16:24:05 -0000 Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:24:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090709162405.8687.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/40667] [4.4/4.5 Regression] stack frames are generated even with -fomit-frame-pointer In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "jakub 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00799.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-09 16:24 ------- I'm not sure what you mean MINIMUM_TYPE_ALIGN should be. A new type field? That would be IMHO an overkill, would enlarge types too much. If it is just a macro, it should be probably MINIMUM_ALIGNMENT, not MINIMUM_TYPE_ALIGN, and take a tree (TYPE or DECL), mode and initial alignment and just return a possibly lower alignment. So pretty much like ix86_local_alignment, except that it would only ever decrease alignment, rather than also increase it. On most targets the macro would just return the third argument. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40667