> This seems like a SPARC target problem to me -- essentially it's > claiming a higher STACK_BOUNDARY than it really has.
No, it is not, I can guarantee you that the stack pointer is always aligned to 64-bit boundaries on SPARC, otherwise all hell would break loose... > Presumably there's a good reason for this and some kind of hack may be > needed to deal with it in dynamically allocated space. But it does not > seem like we should be forcing all targets to allocate unnecessary space > to deal with this. I agree but SPARC is presumably not the only affected platform, so I think that it's wrong to sureptitiously change the interface with the ~50 back-ends and hope that the maintainers will repair the damage; they won't and we'll have introduced very nasty bugs for a few wasted bytes on the stack. -- Eric Botcazou
