https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #35 from Gabriel Ivăncescu ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #34)
>
> My experience is that _sometimes_ (how often?) GCC assumes the stack is
> aligned. Yes, in theory it shouldn't, but in practice that's not the case.
> Maybe w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #33 from Gabriel Ivăncescu ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #31)
> (In reply to Gabriel Ivăncescu from comment #30)
> > Why would it not be safe? For MinGW specifically, what's not safe about it?
> > The entire Windows stack ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #30 from Gabriel Ivăncescu ---
(In reply to LIU Hao from comment #28)
> Created attachment 61236 [details]
> proposed patch #2
>
> It might not be safe to decrease the preferred stack boundary, so let's keep
> it as 16, but initiali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #10 from Gabriel Ivăncescu ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #9)
> -mpreferred-stack-boundary=n means that functions consume stack in
> increments of 2**n. This is sufficient to ensure that once stack is aligned
> to th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
Gabriel Ivăncescu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabrielopcode at gmail dot com
---
