From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22817 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2008 19:51:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 22801 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Oct 2008 19:51:00 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp7-g19.free.fr (HELO smtp7-g19.free.fr) (212.27.42.64) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:50:21 +0000 Received: from smtp7-g19.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp7-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 784CFB085D for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:50:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (gre92-6-82-231-206-104.fbx.proxad.net [82.231.206.104]) by smtp7-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD5DB0505 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:50:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48EE6077.2000706@yahoo.fr> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:51:00 -0000 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien_Kunz-Jacques?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) 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> <48EE0394.8040704@homemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <48EE0394.8040704@homemail.com.au> 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/msg00063.txt.bz2 Ross Johnson a écrit : > 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 > > I haven't tried it, but will do it shortly. Since this realigns the stack in all functions, it may impact performance. I would think this impact is small to negligible however. SKJ