Re: sparc64 changes and generic backend patches

[David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com>]

>>>>> Richard Henderson writes:

> Um, I think we are speaking to entirely different issues ...
> I am _not_ trying to preserve any sort of
> compatibility, nor am I using it for any sort of "escape mechanism".

	As I said at the beginning of my message, I was not sure which set
of patches from the earlier discussions were being described.  PARALLEL
and emit_group_{store,load} are the correct way to describe some ABIs
which do not have a uniform padding policy, such as Sparc64.  I am not
sure if Irix5 and/or Irix6 need this expressiveness.

	A GCC change to support Irix5 calling conventions broke AIX
calling conventions' uniform padding policy a while ago.  Our earlier
discussion about "move_block_from_reg ignoring padding" included using
your changes as a "catch-all" and noted that move_block_from_reg is called
from the same places as emit_group_store possibly making your changes
applicable there as well.

	I still would like to see the current move_block code and
MUST_PASS_IN_STACK fixed to obey FUNCTION_ARG_PADDING (starting with
J"oern's patches), with some compatibility mode for ABI's which
effectively were defined by current GCC behavior.

Thanks, David