From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14879 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2008 13:14:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 14871 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Oct 2008 13:14:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from flexo.grapevine.net.au (HELO flexo.grapevine.net.au) (203.129.32.140) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:14:01 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by flexo.grapevine.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94561581052 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:13:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from flexo.grapevine.net.au ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (flexo.grapevine.net.au [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nNyNHraVrS-9 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:13:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ppp-6.206.127.121.grapevine.net.au [121.127.206.6]) by flexo.grapevine.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55645580F3D for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:13:57 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <48EE0394.8040704@homemail.com.au> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:14:00 -0000 From: Ross Johnson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pthreads-win32@sourceware.org Subject: Re: pthreads-win32 2.8.0, stack alignment, and SSE code References: <48E8B399.502@yahoo.fr> <48E8C3B8.2080709@lisha.ufsc.br> <48E8D34F.4@yahoo.fr> <48E906BD.5090304@lisha.ufsc.br> <48E90CB1.2040000@yahoo.fr> <48E91469.3060508@lisha.ufsc.br> <48E91F80.5080809@yahoo.fr> <48E9429E.8020601@lisha.ufsc.br> In-Reply-To: <48E9429E.8020601@lisha.ufsc.br> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact pthreads-win32-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: pthreads-win32-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2 I've just read this whole thread for the first time. I haven't come across this issue of alignment on Intel processors before so I thought I'd better at least Google around the subject before replying. Unfortunately I've got to run now and won't be reading mail for another 5 days or so. I would very likely include the patch as a build option, so I'm wondering if you've tried building the library with the -mstackrealign gcc flag that does the same thing as force_align_arg_pointer (I haven't tried either of these but read about it). Ross Ramiro Polla wrote: > Sébastien Kunz-Jacques wrote: >> If for some reason it is not desirable to patch the lib, would it be >> possible to have some easy to see disclaimer added about this problem >> somewhere? > > Oh, that's not my call =). It's up to Ross Johnson to decide. I simply > had lots of free time today and decided to share my ideas. You can > disregard anything I said... (although I think they might help). > > The patch is not necessary because 4-byte alignment is enough for x86 > and Win32, but it certainly might help some people to avoid a headache > like you mentioned. > > Ramiro Polla