https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #89 from H.J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
Jackie Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jackie.rosen at hushmail dot
com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #87 from Dzianis Kahanovich 2011-03-13
16:56:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #85)
> Am I the only one who thinks this bug should be nominated as the first
> priority
> GCC 4.6.0 bug?
Some lazy people ;) may use global mstackrealign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #86 from H.J. Lu 2011-01-18 21:07:26
UTC ---
I am in the process of updating i386 psABI to specify 16byte stack
alignment.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #85 from Artem S. Tashkinov
2011-01-18 21:02:43 UTC ---
Am I the only one who thinks this bug should be nominated as the first priority
GCC 4.6.0 bug?
I don't really care if the fix would be backported to 4.5.x or 4.4.x releases,
but
--- Comment #84 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2010-08-25 21:27 ---
(In reply to comment #83)
If the bug is not related to stack alignment (i.e. it crashes not on unaligned
SSE access), simplify it and file another bugzilla entry.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
--- Comment #83 from jasmin at revisionfx dot com 2010-08-24 22:09 ---
(In reply to comment #82)
> -mstackrealign is available from gcc 4.5.0.
So 1) you are right that somehow - mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 does not always
work - I found a case where I crash
2) so I compiled gcc 4.5.1
--- Comment #82 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2010-08-17 21:17 ---
-mstackrealign is available from gcc 4.5.0. For gcc 4.4 you can use my patch
GCC-4.4.1-ALIGN-PATCH from this bugzilla or H.J.Lu's last patch. It basically
does the same as -mstackrealign (but i
--- Comment #81 from jasmin at revisionfx dot com 2010-08-17 21:03 ---
(In reply to comment #80)
> Comment #79:
>
> -mstackrealign does the right thing, it realigns the stack when needed, but
> keeps it 16-byte aligned on function output. It should be used.
>
I don't have that optio
--- Comment #80 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2010-08-17 20:17 ---
Comment #79:
-mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 adheres to the sysv ABI but it doesn't adhere to
the Linux ABI (that requires 16-byte alignment), so if you compile anything
with -mpreferred-stack-bo
--- Comment #79 from jasmin at revisionfx dot com 2010-08-11 21:26 ---
> I am not exactly sure how to report a bug here
Find the answer here:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/539632
" Compile with -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2. This will force GCC to compile
code that adheres to
--- Comment #78 from jasmin at revisionfx dot com 2010-08-09 01:56 ---
I am not exactly sure how to report a bug here - but it seems highly related to
this thread (I am pie...@revisionfx.com, since I am not sure if I am
auto-subscribed to this thread, and so will get email back about th
--- Comment #77 from jcea at hispasec dot com 2010-05-12 13:14 ---
Discussión in progress:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-May/100044.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #76 from jcea at hispasec dot com 2010-05-12 13:00 ---
[Zlib-devel] HEADS UP: Apparent bad compilation under (just released) GCC 4.5.0
http://mail.madler.net/pipermail/zlib-devel_madler.net/2010-May/002267.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #75 from dirtyepic at gentoo dot org 2010-04-29 22:58 ---
if some libraries, (zlib and fontconfig i've had personal experience with, i've
also heard libgcrypt) are compiled with -ftree-vectorize (ie. -O3) on x86
systems supporting SSE2, it causes segfaults in certain packages
--- Comment #74 from t dot artem at mailcity dot com 2010-04-29 08:29
---
Guys, you are talking in riddles.
There's a fact: with -msse2 -O2 -m32 flags GCC generate bad code for some
properly coded applications, so I wonder what users are supposed to do.
There are already six duplicate
--- Comment #73 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-04-29 07:50 ---
>From the manual:
`-mstackrealign'
Realign the stack at entry. On the Intel x86, the `-mstackrealign'
option will generate an alternate prologue and epilogue that
realigns the runtime stack if necessary.
--- Comment #72 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-29 07:33 ---
There is no agreement on this being actually a bug, -mpreferred-stack-boundary
is actually an ABI changing option and if you use it you are supposed to deal
with the things it is causing (such as using -mstackrealign
--- Comment #71 from t dot artem at mailcity dot com 2010-04-29 07:24
---
(In reply to comment #70)
No, I haven't used -mstackrealign as I presumed that the patch is sufficient -
and since you make me sound like I'm wrong, then the patch is also wrong, since
GCC must be producing a wor
--- Comment #70 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-04-29 06:29 ---
(In reply to comment #69)
> (In reply to comment #64)
> > Subject: Bug 40838
> >
>
> This patch is not sufficient, some applications still crash after I've applied
> it to GCC 4.4 branch (to be more precise gcc-4.4-2010
--- Comment #69 from t dot artem at mailcity dot com 2010-04-29 02:12
---
(In reply to comment #64)
> Subject: Bug 40838
>
This patch is not sufficient, some applications still crash after I've applied
it to GCC 4.4 branch (to be more precise gcc-4.4-20100427.tar.bz2).
I still wonder
--- Comment #68 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2010-04-20 07:48 ---
gcc 4.5 is affected too. It would be nice if they fixed it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #67 from t dot artem at mailcity dot com 2010-04-17 14:28
---
Am I right assuming that GCC 4.5 is also affected by this bug? Is this bug
going to be resolved?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #66 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-12-26 22:19
---
*** Bug 42513 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #65 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-10-31 16:47
---
Here are the differences of "-m32 -O3 -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -ffast-math
-funroll-loops" vs. "-m32 -O3 -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -ffast-math -funroll-loops
-mstackrealign" using ix86/gcc-4_4-branch on Intel Core i7:
164.gz
--- Comment #64 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-30 15:45 ---
Subject: Bug 40838
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Oct 30 15:45:23 2009
New Revision: 153757
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=153757
Log:
gcc/
2009-10-30 H.J. Lu
Backport from mainline:
--- Comment #63 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-30 14:32 ---
Subject: Bug 40838
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Oct 30 14:32:26 2009
New Revision: 153750
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=153750
Log:
Optimize -mstackrealign.
gcc/
2009-10-30 H.J. Lu
PR ta
--- Comment #62 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-10-16 02:48
---
(In reply to comment #61)
>
> As for the updated patch --- why does it modify the autovectorizer? Anything
> that the autovectorizer does can be done manually without the autovectorizer.
> So, if there is a case w
--- Comment #61 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-10-16 02:10 ---
> Why should gcc align the stack when SSE registers aren't used
> at all?
Because it passes pointer to the structure containing vector entries to someone
else who expects it to be aligned.
As
--- Comment #60 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-10-16 00:56
---
Created an attachment (id=18805)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18805&action=view)
An updated patch
This patch aligns stack if there is a stack variable with 128bit alignment.
--
hjl dot t
--- Comment #59 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-10-15 20:54
---
(In reply to comment #58)
> (In reply to comment #53)
> > Created an attachment (id=18656)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18656&action=view) [edit]
> > An updated patch for gcc 4.4
>
> Seamonk
--- Comment #58 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-10-15 20:24 ---
(In reply to comment #53)
> Created an attachment (id=18656)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18656&action=view) [edit]
> An updated patch for gcc 4.4
Seamonkey is correct w
--- Comment #57 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-10-15 14:29 ---
(In reply to comment #53)
> Created an attachment (id=18656)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18656&action=view) [edit]
> An updated patch for gcc 4.4
>
> Oops. Wrong patch. Trry this one.
>
Looks good
--- Comment #56 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-09-27 09:36 ---
As for this "old code that assumes 16-byte alignment": this is wrong code
generated by old versions of gcc. It only works as long as it is called from
other gcc >= 3 code (call it from gcc < 3,
--- Comment #55 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-09-27 09:07 ---
"If we assume incoming stack is 4byte aligned, we have to realign stack for
every function due to #2, which isn't acceptable."
No, you don't. All you have to do is to allocate the stack frame
--- Comment #54 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-09-27 09:03 ---
(In reply to comment #51)
For 4.4, the designers held two wrong assumptions:
1) the incoming stack is always aligned on -mincoming-stack-boundary (wrong for
functions called from assembler or
--- Comment #53 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-09-26 16:58
---
Created an attachment (id=18656)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18656&action=view)
An updated patch for gcc 4.4
Oops. Wrong patch. Trry this one.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed
--- Comment #49 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-09-26 14:06
---
(In reply to comment #48)
> It can be seen from the patch. I don't know how to detect that a structure
> contains an array with required SSE align, so I realign the stack for all
> types
Please find a testcase fi
--- Comment #52 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-09-26 16:55
---
Created an attachment (id=18655)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18655&action=view)
An updated patch for gcc 4.4
Please try this patch for gcc 4.4.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed
--- Comment #51 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-09-26 16:15
---
(In reply to comment #50)
>
> I am saying that the patch could be included in 4.4 as a quick fix and that
> 4.5
> needs stack alignment redesign. You can't redesign it by incrementally testing
> against a set of
--- Comment #50 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-09-26 15:44 ---
> Please find a testcase first. Otherwise, nothing will be done. Thanks.
I don't want anything to be done (unless the patch causes generation of wrong
code --- I am not aware of such case).
I
--- Comment #48 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-09-26 04:25 ---
It can be seen from the patch. I don't know how to detect that a structure
contains an array with required SSE align, so I realign the stack for all types
BLKmode with alignment >= 16. That may
--- Comment #47 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-09-25 02:31
---
(In reply to comment #46)
> Created an attachment (id=18646)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18646&action=view) [edit]
> A patch for gcc 4.4.1
>
> I decided to make a patch on my own. Seamonkey
--- Comment #46 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-09-25 00:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=18646)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18646&action=view)
A patch for gcc 4.4.1
I decided to make a patch on my own. Seamonkey works with it. It s
--- Comment #45 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-09-23 18:37 ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> Created an attachment (id=18618)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18618&action=view) [edit]
> An updated patch for gcc 4.4
>
Seamonkey still segfault. Still required -mstackrea
--- Comment #44 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-09-23 16:34
---
(In reply to comment #43)
> With the patch from comment #41, my test examples pass but seamonkey is still
> miscompiled, the function pow5mult still doesn't align the stack and spills
> xmm0 on it.
>
Please find
--- Comment #43 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-09-23 16:28 ---
With the patch from comment #41, my test examples pass but seamonkey is still
miscompiled, the function pow5mult still doesn't align the stack and spills
xmm0 on it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #42 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-09-20 18:44
---
(In reply to comment #39)
> The updated patch fixes align-counterexample1.c, but not
> align-counterexample2.c. Note that you must align the stack for all functions
> that have some SSE operations, because you neve
--- Comment #41 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-09-20 18:44
---
Created an attachment (id=18618)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18618&action=view)
An updated patch for gcc 4.4
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #40 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-09-20 18:43
---
Created an attachment (id=18617)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18617&action=view)
An updated patch for gcc trunk
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #39 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-09-20 06:30 ---
The updated patch fixes align-counterexample1.c, but not
align-counterexample2.c. Note that you must align the stack for all functions
that have some SSE operations, because you never know if t
--- Comment #38 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-09-19 21:40
---
(In reply to comment #32)
> Created an attachment (id=18578)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18578&action=view) [edit]
> A bug example for 4.4 patch
>
> Shows a bug in 4.4 patch
>
Please try
--- Comment #37 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-09-19 21:38
---
(In reply to comment #33)
> Created an attachment (id=18579)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18579&action=view) [edit]
> Another bug in 4.4 patch
>
> Another bug in 4.4 patch.
>
This one does
--- Comment #36 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-09-19 21:38
---
Created an attachment (id=18611)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18611&action=view)
An updated patch for gcc trunk
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #35 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-09-19 21:37
---
Created an attachment (id=18610)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18610&action=view)
An updated patch for gcc 4.4
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #34 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-09-13 14:07 ---
So I posted these two examples that show that the patch is insufficient:
1) if the array is embedded in a structure and that structure is on the stack,
the stack is not aligned. (if the array
--- Comment #33 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-09-13 13:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=18579)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18579&action=view)
Another bug in 4.4 patch
Another bug in 4.4 patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #32 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-09-13 13:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=18578)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18578&action=view)
A bug example for 4.4 patch
Shows a bug in 4.4 patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #31 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-08-27 19:17 ---
Seamonkey still more unstable then with 4.3.3. With system libs, -O3 & sse -
ruuning only in "safe-mode". All system rebuilt with 4.4.1 & this patch. There
are looks like "seamonkey problem" (and I will add "-mno-sse" into eb
--- Comment #30 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-08-23 19:28 ---
I tested the 4.4 patch and it works fine.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #29 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-08-19 19:08 ---
(In reply to comment #28)
...
> This is not mine and isn't needed.
OK. New patch working. While only so (tested in seamonkey with all included
libs).
Are realigning needed for both states of "TREE_STATIC (decl)"? Now in
tre
--- Comment #28 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-08-18 14:01
---
(In reply to comment #27)
> (In reply to comment #26)
> > *** Bug 40985 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
>
> (In reply to comment #25)
> > Created an attachment (id=18393)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Comment #27 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-08-18 11:28 ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> *** Bug 40985 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #25)
> Created an attachment (id=18393)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18393&action=view) [e
--- Comment #26 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-08-18 04:50
---
*** Bug 40985 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #25 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-08-18 04:43
---
Created an attachment (id=18393)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18393&action=view)
A patch for gcc 4.4
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #24 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-08-16 17:37
---
(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #21)
>
> Unfortunatelly, that patch is wrong. It aligns when there is some vector type
> in the function but it doesn't align if the autovectorizer creates SSE
> in
--- Comment #23 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-08-08 17:30 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
Unfortunatelly, that patch is wrong. It aligns when there is some vector type
in the function but it doesn't align if the autovectorizer creates SSE
instructions. Try
--- Comment #22 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-08-06 21:43
---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-08/msg00392.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #21 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-08-06 21:05
---
Created an attachment (id=18314)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18314&action=view)
A patch
Here is a patch to automatically realign stack if any SSE variable
is put on stack.
--
http://gc
--- Comment #20 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-08-06 16:48
---
(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #18)
>
> Yes. But not an option. Make it default and make it optional to disable the
> alignment. Make it default, because such option would be useless if all
> lib
--- Comment #19 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-07-31 16:17 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
Yes. But not an option. Make it default and make it optional to disable the
alignment. Make it default, because such option would be useless if all
libraries didn't u
--- Comment #18 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-07-31 15:51
---
(In reply to comment #17)
> "Even if we align the incoming stack properly, we still have to align the
> outgoing stack to 16byte"
>
> I'm not opposing it. What I mean is: every function will have stack frame size
--- Comment #17 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-07-31 15:31 ---
"Even if we align the incoming stack properly, we still have to align the
outgoing stack to 16byte"
I'm not opposing it. What I mean is: every function will have stack frame size
that is multi
--- Comment #16 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-07-31 15:22 ---
H.J. Lu: No, you only have to align the stack in functions that do 16-byte SSE.
I mean this:
there are two possible reasons for aligning the stack
1) improved performance (double, long double
--- Comment #15 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-07-31 14:27
---
It is too late to change now. Even if we align the incoming
stack properly, we still have to align the outgoing stack
to 16byte since the existing binaries which use SSE won't
align the stack. That means we have to
--- Comment #14 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-07-31 13:54 ---
Jakub: And how many other "bugs" like this are there? 75% of binaries in /bin
are "buggy". Do you think it is really sensible to declare that majority of
Linux software is buggy?
--
http:/
--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-31 07:12 ---
So, you found a glibc bug, which can be easily fixed by:
--- libc/malloc/Makefile 2009-05-16 19:23:36.0 +0200
+++ libc/malloc/Makefile 2009-07-31 09:09:51.760080072 +0200
@@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ $(objpfx)memusages
--- Comment #12 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-07-31 01:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=18276)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18276&action=view)
Crash because gcc assumes false stack alignment
Here I'm submitting an example code that
--- Comment #11 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-07-31 01:00 ---
So I did this experiment whether the stack is aligned in current Linux
binaries.
I applied this patch for gcc, so that it crashes on function entry if the
function has stack not aligned on 16 b
--- Comment #10 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-07-23 14:36 ---
Jakub: so try that "test $15, %esp; jnz abort" at every function, as I proposed
in bug #38496. There are much more places that will trigger this. Just go catch
them.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-07-23 13:56 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
>
> Another point: if gcc realigns the stack, why then use movdqu to store the
> values on the stack? That is suboptimal.
>
This is a dup for PR 39315.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-23 13:54 ---
Please read Joseph's responses in PR38496.
If you are aware of places in glibc that don't maintain 16 byte stack
alignment, please report them. Certainly calling glibc (or any other default
compiler flags compiled) l
--- Comment #7 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-07-23 13:49 ---
See bug #27537, quoting "GNU/Linux follows the SYSV x86 ABI which is
documented, maybe you cannot find it but it does exist. The SYSV x86 ABI says
the stack is aligned 4 byte aligned."
That bug
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-07-23 13:43 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39315 ***
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-23 13:24 ---
The ABI has changed 8+ years ago, you are coming too late.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #4 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-07-23 13:19 ---
"Linux/ix86 ABI says that stack must be 16 byte aligned."
No it doesn't. There is a plenty of Linux code that doesn't have the stack
aligned on 16-byte boundary. (at least anything that was com
--- Comment #3 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-07-23 13:15 ---
What I would propose to fix this and bug #40667:
Each type has required alignment and preferred alignment. Enforced alignment is
what is needed to not crash and not violate the ABI, preferred a
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-23 13:13 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38496 ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-23 12:56 ---
Linux/ix86 ABI says that stack must be 16 byte aligned. So GCC can rely on it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
90 matches
Mail list logo
