On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hm, OK, I think it affects unix64/x86-32 also when using 32-byte
> alignment. We do use the stack pointer then.
On 32-bit and UNIX64 it simply uses a different caller-saved register
which doesn't require additional instructions.
> I thi
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Henrik Gramner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Ronald S. Bultje
> wrote:
> > I know I'm terribly nitpicking here for the limited scope of the comment,
> > but this only matters for functions that have a return value. Do you
> think
> > it makes sen
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> I know I'm terribly nitpicking here for the limited scope of the comment,
> but this only matters for functions that have a return value. Do you think
> it makes sense to allow functions to opt out of this requirement if they
> explicitly
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Henrik Gramner wrote:
> When allocating stack space with an alignment requirement that is larger
> than the current stack alignment we need to store a copy of the original
> stack pointer in order to be able to restore it later.
>
> If we chose to use another
