From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15956 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2007 21:02:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 15948 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Nov 2007 21:02:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:01:59 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7670F98367; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:01:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB5198100; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:01:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Iuwho-00049G-GP; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:01:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:22:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Richard Kenner Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Problem with ARM_DOUBLEWORD_ALIGN on ARM Message-ID: <20071121210156.GA15755@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Kenner , gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <10711212056.AA27371@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <10711212056.AA27371@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00558.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 03:56:02PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote: > When that option is enabled, STACK_BOUNDARY is set to 64. > > But when you look at arm_expand_prologue, it appears that very little > effort is made to respect that alignment. Three specific cases I see > are the IS_NESTED case of pushing ip_rtx and, the lack of checking the > size of args_to_push, and no attempt to ensure that an even number of > registers are saved. But there may well be other cases I haven't found. > > I'm not familiar with the ABI of that machine to know how these should > be changed. Does anybody who knows the ABI know how to fix this? Do you have any test cases? I'm pretty sure this works, at least in the usual cases. A wild guess says that you're doing this in Ada. It may be something specific to the nested case then. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery