From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4684 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2003 19:40:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4675 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2003 19:40:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO igw2.watson.ibm.com) (129.34.20.6) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 11 Feb 2003 19:40:14 -0000 Received: from sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com [9.2.112.57]) by igw2.watson.ibm.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h1BJcko16860; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:38:46 -0500 Received: from makai.watson.ibm.com (makai.watson.ibm.com [9.2.216.144]) by sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h1BJckg37338; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:38:46 -0500 Received: from watson.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by makai.watson.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3/09-18-2002) with ESMTP id OAA29470; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:38:45 -0500 Message-Id: <200302111938.OAA29470@makai.watson.ibm.com> To: Geoff Keating cc: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Altivec + 16 byte alignment In-Reply-To: Message from Geoff Keating of "Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:24:29 PST." <200302111924.h1BJOTA13916@desire.geoffk.org> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:40:00 -0000 From: David Edelsohn X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00684.txt.bz2 >>>>> Geoff Keating writes: Geoff> In the abstract, you compare with MAX_OFILE_BOUNDARY. You can align Geoff> the stack to any value you like, but you can't do better than Geoff> MAX_OFILE_BOUNDARY in the object file. I think part of the confusion is this depends on the type of storage. For an automatic variable on the stack, MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT is irrelevant. For a global or static variable allocated in the data or bss segment, MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT describes the functionality of the link-editor pre-allocating storage in the process address space. David