From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marc Lehmann <pcg@goof.com>
To: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: x86 double alignment (was egcs-1.1 release schedule)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 18:02:00 -0000
Message-id: <19980628213954.57841@cerebro.laendle>
References: <19980624192457.45730@cerebro.laendle> <27212.898759317@hurl.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 1998-06/msg01035.html

On Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 01:21:57AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> 
> 
>   In message < 19980624192457.45730@cerebro.laendle >you write:
>   > If we had -mstack-align-double in egcs, maybe glibc could compile _some_ functions
>   > (like qsort or __libc_start) with it, so the problem of combine breaking code
>   > is solved, so we can either
> Actually, if I remember the problem you described correctly, combine was
> doing the right thing.

Combine is doing the right thing, yes. It does an unsafe optimization,
but the machine description clearly says it can.

I meant if egcs _had_ this switch, the functions using callback-functions
could be compiled with it, so code that is compiled with
-mstack-align-double is safe, even if called from libc.

      -----==-                                              |
      ----==-- _                                            |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann       +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       pcg@goof.com       |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\                          --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                        |
                                                          |