On 05/27/2011 05:54 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Like this? Untested so far beyond making sure it builds.
Yes.
Paolo
On 05/17/2011 06:34 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 05/12/2011 05:40 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> + if (targetm.calls.function_arg_round_to_arg_boundary (passed_mode,
>> type))
>> +round_boundary = boundary;
>> + else
>> +round_boundary = PARM_BOUNDARY;
>
> Why add an if, instead of making
On 05/12/2011 05:40 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
+ if (targetm.calls.function_arg_round_to_arg_boundary (passed_mode, type))
+round_boundary = boundary;
+ else
+round_boundary = PARM_BOUNDARY;
Why add an if, instead of making the new target hook
function_arg_round_boundary? The default
On 05/10/2011 06:57 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On C6X, we have PARM_BOUNDARY == 8 (one byte), but some function
>> argument slots still must be rounded to a larger value. As far as I
>> could tell there's currently no way of telling gcc about this,
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On C6X, we have PARM_BOUNDARY == 8 (one byte), but some function
> argument slots still must be rounded to a larger value. As far as I
> could tell there's currently no way of telling gcc about this, hence a
> new target macro which controls this behavio
On C6X, we have PARM_BOUNDARY == 8 (one byte), but some function
argument slots still must be rounded to a larger value. As far as I
could tell there's currently no way of telling gcc about this, hence a
new target macro which controls this behaviour.
Bernd
* doc/tm.texi.in (FUNCTION_ARG
