From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-73869-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1308 invoked by alias); 11 May 2003 11:31:37 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 1301 invoked from network); 11 May 2003 11:31:36 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 May 2003 11:31:36 -0000
Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34)
	id AA26050; Sun, 11 May 03 07:36:19 EDT
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 11:31:00 -0000
From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Message-Id: <10305111136.AA26050@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
To: dj@redhat.com
Subject: Re: alignment: store_one_arg vs emit_push_insn
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01041.txt.bz2

    > No, it looks right to me.  PARM_BOUNDARY is the smallest alignment a
    > parameter is allowed to have, but some might be more aligned.

    Then emit_push_insn is misusing it, as it uses it as the alignment of
    the source, not just the destination.

I don't follow.  emit_push_insn barely uses it *at all*.