On 10/05/2017 03:16 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >> 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? > > What I got from the discussion and the PR is that the stack hardregister > is properly aligned but what GCC maps to it (virtual or frame or whatever) > might not be at all points. Ah! But I'd probably claim that having the virtual unaligned is erroneous.
> > allocate_dynamic_stack_space uses virtual_stack_dynamic_rtx and I'm not > sure STACK_BOUNDARY applies to it? > > Not that I know anything about this here ;) My first thought is that sure it should apply. It just seems wrong that STACK_BOUNDARY wouldn't apply to the virtual. But I doubt we've ever documented that as a requirement/assumption. Jeff
