From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6278 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2003 22:12:01 -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 6018 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2003 22:11:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO faui11.informatik.uni-erlangen.de) (131.188.31.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2003 22:11:54 -0000 Received: (from weigand@localhost) by faui11.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (8.9.1/8.1.4-FAU) id XAA14586; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:11:50 +0100 (MET) From: Ulrich Weigand Message-Id: <200303202211.XAA14586@faui11.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Subject: Re: RFA: Ada variable-sized objects, bit_size_type == TImode, and divti3 To: rth@redhat.com Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 22:35:00 -0000 Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, uweigand@de.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg01316.txt.bz2 Richard Henderson wrote: >On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 09:58:58PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: >> Ada builds are currently failing on s390x due to missing __divti3. > >That shouldn't be happening. They get built for e.g. alpha and ia64... Well, I guess I can find out why divti3 doesn't get built. However, the IMO really interesting question is why TImode division should be needed -- calling __divti3 just to make sure that a variable is 8-byte aligned on the stack strikes me as seriously suboptimal ... Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand weigand@informatik.uni-erlangen.de