ahatanak added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:4232
@@ +4231,3 @@
+ false))
+ CmdArgs.push_back(Args.MakeArgString("-force-align-stack"));
+
----------------
echristo wrote:
> hfinkel wrote:
> > echristo wrote:
> > > hfinkel wrote:
> > > > The code below for OPT_mstackrealign uses -mstackrealign as the name of
> > > > the backend option too. Why not do the same for OPT_mstackrealign (use
> > > > -mstackrealign as the name of the backend option) instead of inventing
> > > > a new flag name -force-align-stack?
> > > In general we don't do that. But I also don't want this to use a backend
> > > option anyhow, why are we doing that here once we have the attribute?
> > It's not a backend option, this is the flag being passed from the driver to
> > clang -cc1.
> >
> Aha. I must have misread. Then I totally agree :)
I believe the confusing part here is that the CC1 option "-mstackrealign" in
the code below indicates stack realignment is allowed, but not necessarily
forced (see the definition of StackRealignment in CodeGenOptions.def). This is
different from the driver option options::OPT_mstackrealign, which indicates
stack alignment should be forced.
Does that answer your question?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11815
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
