subject:"\"\\\[Bug target\\\/40838\\\] gcc shouldn't assume that the stack is aligned\""

[Bug target/40838] gcc shouldn't assume that the stack is aligned

2020-02-18 Thread mahatma at eu dot by

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838 Dzianis Kahanovich changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #47753|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/40838] gcc shouldn't assume that the stack is aligned

2020-01-31 Thread mahatma at eu dot by

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838 --- Comment #101 from Dzianis Kahanovich --- Created attachment 47754 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47754&action=edit additional aligning on demand 10.0 (unsure) This is same for gcc 10.0 and not fully verifyed. It MUST w

[Bug target/40838] gcc shouldn't assume that the stack is aligned

2020-01-31 Thread mahatma at eu dot by

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838 --- Comment #100 from Dzianis Kahanovich --- Created attachment 47753 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47753&action=edit additional aligning on demand <10.0 Finally (for me), if somebody think to patch by H.J. Lu is not enou

[Bug target/40838] gcc shouldn't assume that the stack is aligned

2020-01-16 Thread mahatma at eu dot by

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838 --- Comment #99 from Dzianis Kahanovich --- PPS About some hidden thinks/things. In pure theory. "*cost-model=cheap" can reduce SSE usage, -mstackrealign - can increase function prolog/epilog overhead. In my case - x7-Z8700 CPU have 2 FPU cores f

[Bug target/40838] gcc shouldn't assume that the stack is aligned

2020-01-16 Thread mahatma at eu dot by

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838 --- Comment #98 from Dzianis Kahanovich --- fix: "I not try to rebuild 32bit "world" without ANY workaround" - on modern gcc (now all under 9.2). Previous experiments was times & versions ago, so many other new factors/fixes can solve most issues

[Bug target/40838] gcc shouldn't assume that the stack is aligned

2020-01-16 Thread mahatma at eu dot by

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838 --- Comment #97 from Dzianis Kahanovich --- No. Looking into gcc/opts.c - "-O3 optimizations" section - line: { OPT_LEVELS_3_PLUS, OPT_fvect_cost_model_, NULL, VECT_COST_MODEL_DYNAMIC }, - so, for -O3 it's "dynamic". Then, RTFM, "cheap" more car

[Bug target/40838] gcc shouldn't assume that the stack is aligned

2020-01-16 Thread ostash at ostash dot kiev.ua

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838 --- Comment #96 from Viktor Ostashevskyi --- Honestly, I don't see how your compiler flags could help. cost-model=cheap is default, data-alignment doesn't change incoming stack alignment. ср, 15 січ. 2020, 14:31 користувач mahatma at eu dot by <

[Bug target/40838] gcc shouldn't assume that the stack is aligned

2020-01-15 Thread mahatma at eu dot by

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838 --- Comment #95 from Dzianis Kahanovich --- Just FYI. Novadays, on my Thinkpad tablet with Atom (32 bit userspace Gentoo), I globally replace patch/-mstackrealign to "-fvect-cost-model=cheap -fsimd-cost-model=cheap -malign-data=cacheline" and all

[Bug target/40838] gcc shouldn't assume that the stack is aligned

2020-01-13 Thread ostash at ostash dot kiev.ua

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838 --- Comment #94 from Viktor Ostashevskyi --- (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #93) > (In reply to Viktor Ostashevskyi from comment #92) > > I've tried to run some old binaries yesterday (StarOffice 5.1, get it from > > archive.org) and hi

[Bug target/40838] gcc shouldn't assume that the stack is aligned

2020-01-13 Thread fw at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838 --- Comment #93 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Viktor Ostashevskyi from comment #92) > I've tried to run some old binaries yesterday (StarOffice 5.1, get it from > archive.org) and hit this bug. > > What are possible workarounds? You need