From: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>
To: Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt@redhat.com>, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc-patches List <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: PATCH to consider MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT for targetm.absolute_biggest_alignment
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:43:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y42uzbkd.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f8738fdb-c5fc-5d49-9cfc-50cec8768f72@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1116 bytes --]
Hi!
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 16:27:39 +0200, Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/13/2016 04:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > But we could define TARGET_ABSOLUTE_BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT on nvptx instead
> > of on x86; is this OK?
>
> That's what I had in mind. It would be good if Thomas or Nathan could
> give this patch a spin, I'm not currently really set up for it. But it
> looks like a reasonable try to me.
I'm happy to report that this patch doesn't cause any changes in test
results both for nvptx target testing, and for nvptx offloading testing.
But I have not examined in detail what it actually does ;-) -- currently
occupied with too much other work already.
> > I'm still not sure why you need an alignment cap on nvptx, but I'm not
> > going to worry about it anymore. :)
>
> I think it was the cfgexpand machinery that uses dynamic allocations
> when a variable has a bigger alignment than the stack, and you really
> don't want these on ptx.
It will be good to document that, next to the definition in
gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.h maybe?
Grüße
Thomas
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 472 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-14 16:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-12 19:00 Jason Merrill
2016-09-13 11:03 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-09-13 14:27 ` Jason Merrill
2016-09-13 14:34 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-09-14 16:43 ` Thomas Schwinge [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87y42uzbkd.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net \
--to=thomas@codesourcery.com \
--cc=bschmidt@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=nathan@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).