From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-427238-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 16252 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2013 22:35:27 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 16180 invoked by uid 48); 2 Aug 2013 22:35:24 -0000
From: "bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/58065] New: ARM MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT is wrong
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 22:35:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter cf_gcctarget
Message-ID: <bug-58065-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00162.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58065

            Bug ID: 58065
           Summary: ARM MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT is wrong
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.9.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: target
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
            Target: arm*-*-*

the ARM target architecture does not define the MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT,
therefore the default is used as BITS_PER_WORD, 32 in this case.

This produces sometimes suboptimal code, because the front-end
assumes that the function malloc() returns only word-aligned pointers,
which is likely wrong. I have not found any specific requirements
on the malloc alignment in the AAPCS document at
http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0042e/IHI0042E_aapcs.pdf
but I believe that the intention is to align everything including stack
pointers to 8 bytes.

Therefore I would suggest the attached patch which defines
MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT as BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT, which is 64 bits.

As a proof that this has indeed some subtle influence on the generated code
I attach a test case. The function foo is called by bar, and bar uses
malloc to allocate the memory, with compiler options "-O3 -g0 -mfpu=neon
-mfloat-abi=softfp" the function foo is inlined into bar,
but the inlined version does not use vstr instructions any more, because
the front-end does assume that malloc returns 4 byte aligned memory.

If that was really true, foo must fail, if it is called without inlining.
Therefore this code is just clumsy and less optimal than it could be.