On 10/04/2017 08:53 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> 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... Then something is inconsistent somehwere. Either the stack is aligned prior to that code or it is not. If it is aligned, then Wilco's patch ought to keep it aligned. If is not properly aligned, then well, that's the problem ISTM.
Am I missing something here? jeff
