From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-409820-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 67339 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2015 23:35:36 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 67326 invoked by uid 89); 9 Oct 2015 23:35:36 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-ob0-f182.google.com
Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f182.google.com) (209.85.214.182) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 23:35:35 +0000
Received: by obbzf10 with SMTP id zf10so73584065obb.2        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.220.227 with SMTP id pz3mr9500005oec.13.1444433732931; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.175.132 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1444430525.3012.9.camel@ubuntu-sellcey>
References: <1443819469.8687.182.camel@ubuntu-sellcey>	<561237B9.1080602@redhat.com>	<1444061411.8687.207.camel@ubuntu-sellcey>	<CAMe9rOr17KDCXzNoAZN6fgXXJ1MMu-enkDw_ykAPpSQAeiAnWQ@mail.gmail.com>	<1444063572.8687.219.camel@ubuntu-sellcey>	<CAMe9rOq5um+cOh2=ibgg10u7WDGSQP80MoDCqHszMa-uz-s3fg@mail.gmail.com>	<1444145408.8687.238.camel@ubuntu-sellcey>	<5613EB22.4020505@redhat.com>	<1444154522.8687.248.camel@ubuntu-sellcey>	<CAMe9rOqMPaAJm_DQ3VOsSnFUe3qek6FaTYReTpV2nwgDdLOCUA@mail.gmail.com>	<1444429340.3012.7.camel@ubuntu-sellcey>	<CAMe9rOp1OR4KQpxd9VL1NB+iRuca+1BciJ1NwuSe=3rjqMqKsA@mail.gmail.com>	<1444430525.3012.9.camel@ubuntu-sellcey>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 23:35:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOp=GHzGecOOxqB=Huf1j-gGAvS=ErMF1NAHjLX5D1yfig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Patch to allow spill slot alignment greater than the stack alignment
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: sellcey@imgtec.com
Cc: Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt@redhat.com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg01041.txt.bz2

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Steve Ellcey <sellcey@imgtec.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 15:36 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>>
>> I am not sure what you were asking.  I tried:
>>
>> make check-g++ RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board='unix{-m32\
>> -mstackrealign}' old-deja.exp=spec*.C"
>> ...
>>
>> === g++ Summary ===
>>
>> # of expected passes 495
>> # of expected failures 3
>>
>> make check-g++ RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board='unix{-m32\
>> -mstackrealign}' old-deja.exp=eh*.C"
>> ...
>> === g++ Summary ===
>>
>> # of expected passes 372
>
> OK, that was what I was wondering about.  I wasn't sure if you had run
> the entire test suite with -mstackrealign or only the tests in
> g++.dg/torture/stackalign.
>

When we were developing dynamic stack realignment, we defaulted
GCC itself to always realign stack.   Tests under g++.dg/torture/stackalign
were extra failures when stack was realigned.   We added those tests
to make sure that stack realignment won't regress.

You can checkout svn branches/stack branch to see what we
did.

-- 
H.J.