From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 71314 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2016 16:33:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 70560 invoked by uid 89); 14 Sep 2016 16:33:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=occupied, examined, H*r:PDT X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:33:04 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1bkD7O-0001oP-DI from Thomas_Schwinge@mentor.com ; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:33:02 -0700 Received: from tftp-cs (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:33:01 -0700 Received: by tftp-cs (Postfix, from userid 49978) id 7692BC231E; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:33:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Schwinge To: Bernd Schmidt , Jason Merrill CC: gcc-patches List , Nathan Sidwell Subject: Re: RFC: PATCH to consider MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT for targetm.absolute_biggest_alignment In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Notmuch/0.9-125-g4686d11 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (i586-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <87y42uzbkd.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00851.txt.bz2 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1110 Hi! On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 16:27:39 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wro= te: > On 09/13/2016 04:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >=20 > > But we could define TARGET_ABSOLUTE_BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT on nvptx instead > > of on x86; is this OK? >=20 > That's what I had in mind. It would be good if Thomas or Nathan could=20 > give this patch a spin, I'm not currently really set up for it. But it=20 > 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. :) >=20 > I think it was the cfgexpand machinery that uses dynamic allocations=20 > when a variable has a bigger alignment than the stack, and you really=20 > don't want these on ptx. It will be good to document that, next to the definition in gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.h maybe? Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe Thomas --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-length: 472 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX2XuyAAoJEK3/DN1sMFFtdK0IAIbibPIj1LBhfqqdE1RsQPxU MdNvh/sJhDNAe7YVScM7xGwxYddufLux9ZQoavpZkljpRiwoAyhcVRhjHE1PmsbV VL/UWpUFdz5hMFKszcXZLM0ZNuptzVvJH+GXOUNHDQhuIhcTN5x6kkekTTL1oRuk JFrh8LgWoSIgWEhkqJXvqlb5njbQSUcZmOwX/WY6JoOrNZkHOv4mOxObBMoCY11C f7mXmBjiyYElrnmYl6NS5dT2OqFEtoJTa1Owcoscd7waZrx9PnE8e/M8lEGmfoIH ZtSWLTIZIUVd6Nb6zXS8LaG+jPsPc2hwF+qYVdxm7nZRN0pe11c+F3DPsY7+hJ4= =SSoS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--