From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12267 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2003 01:15:41 -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 12259 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2003 01:15:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO faui11.informatik.uni-erlangen.de) (131.188.31.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Mar 2003 01:15:40 -0000 Received: (from weigand@localhost) by faui11.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (8.9.1/8.1.4-FAU) id CAA19377; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 02:15:37 +0100 (MET) From: Ulrich Weigand Message-Id: <200303210115.CAA19377@faui11.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Subject: Re: RFA: Ada variable-sized objects, bit_size_type == TImode, and divti3 To: rth@redhat.com (Richard Henderson) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:58:00 -0000 Cc: weigand@immd1.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Ulrich Weigand), gcc@gcc.gnu.org, uweigand@de.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <20030320223021.GJ2006@redhat.com> from "Richard Henderson" at Mar 20, 2003 02:30:21 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg01330.txt.bz2 Richard Henderson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:11:50PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > 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 ... > > Huh? We've computed its size, in bits. We need 67-bit > arithmetic for this, technically. Not that I actually > believe that someone is going to create a 2EB dynamically > sized object... Well, but we don't need the size in bits when computing stack alignment. It should be possible to compute the size in bytes without requiring 67-bit arithmetic ... I just find it weird to require full-blown 128-bit arithmetic which is not actually accessible to the user, and needed only at this place (where it should be actually avoidable). In any case, if that's the way it is, then so be it. ;-) I'll just fix the MIN_UNITS_PER_WORD define to get 128-bit libgcc2 routines built. Thanks, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand weigand@informatik.uni-erlangen.de