http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38496
Jackie Rosen jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #27 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-23 09:45
---
Appearantly I was misguided in comment #24 and likely was thinking about
the 4.4 dynamic stack re-alignment code which (guessing again) is probably
only in effect for AVX.
--
--- Comment #26 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-07-31 01:18 ---
Very unfortunatelly, gcc does assume stack alignment.
The problem is not technical (the code to realign the stack is already there,
it's easy to activate it), the problem is ideological,
--- Comment #24 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-24 12:16
---
GCC does not assume the stack is aligned to 16 bytes if it cannot prove that it
is. That GCC aligns the stack to 16 bytes itself is compliant with the
requirement of 4 byte stack alignment.
So I completely miss
--- Comment #25 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu 2009-07-24 17:05 ---
Richard,
GCC does not assume the stack is aligned to 16 bytes if it cannot prove that
it is.
If this is true now, it is a change from previous behavior. When I reported
this problem, gcc *assumed* 16-byte
--- Comment #22 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-23 13:13 ---
*** Bug 40838 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #23 from mikulas at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-07-23 14:34 ---
So, Joseph is basically arguing that it doesn't make sense to follow bad
standards. Fine. So let's ignore the i386 ABI standard thing for a moment a
look at the change from the practical point
--- Comment #21 from sliwa at cft dot edu dot pl 2009-03-18 13:25 ---
Yes, yes, using gcc has to be pain in the neck.
You are reluctant to fix an obvious mistake and instead of saying sorry are
keeping it broken.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38496
--- Comment #13 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu 2008-12-15 14:52 ---
No; The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from
is a well-known saying.
And also one without application here. I am aware of no other standard for
Linux ABI other than the one in the
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-15 18:17
---
Subject: Re: Gcc misaligns arrays when stack is forced
follow the x8632 ABI
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu wrote:
And also one without application here. I am aware of no other standard
--- Comment #15 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu 2008-12-15 21:32 ---
GCC chose to change the *unwritten* standard for the ABI in use for IA32
GNU/Linux.
This is not true. Prior to this change, gcc followed the *written* standard
provided by the LSB. You chose to violate the
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 15, 2008, at 1:33 PM, whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
wrote:
--- Comment #15 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu 2008-12-15
21:32 ---
GCC chose to change the *unwritten* standard for the ABI in use for
IA32 GNU/Linux.
This
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2008-12-15 21:39 ---
Subject: Re: Gcc misaligns arrays when stack is forced follow the x8632 ABI
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 15, 2008, at 1:33 PM, whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
wrote:
--- Comment #15
--- Comment #17 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu 2008-12-15 22:01 ---
LSB was written years after we had already did this back in gcc 3.0.
Please check the history before saying gcc followed a written standard
when none existed when this change was done.
LSB was merely the
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:01 PM, whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
LSB was merely the umbrella bringing together a bunch of pre-existing
standards
for use in Linux.
There is the problem, LSB did the incorrect thing of thinking the
written standard applied to what
--- Comment #18 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2008-12-15 23:02 ---
Subject: Re: Gcc misaligns arrays when stack is forced follow the x8632 ABI
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:01 PM, whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
LSB was merely the umbrella bringing together
--- Comment #19 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu 2008-12-15 23:39 ---
There is the problem, LSB did the incorrect thing of thinking the written
standard applied to what really was being done when the LSB was doing its
work. Standards are made to be amended. Witness how many RFCs
--- Comment #20 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-16 00:09
---
Subject: Re: Gcc misaligns arrays when stack is forced
follow the x8632 ABI
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu wrote:
If you thought the standard adopted by LSB was the wrong
one, you should
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-15 00:21
---
Subject: Re: Gcc misaligns arrays when stack is forced
follow the x8632 ABI
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu wrote:
LSB may be a starting point for plausible hypotheses about the ABIs, but
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-11 23:02 ---
aligning the stack to 16 bytes is complaint.
generates double precision arrays that are not aligned to 8-byte boundaries
That is ok. There is no interoperability here really.
This is a problem when interacting
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-11 23:04 ---
Your testcase does not show any issues at all. doubles are not required to be
aligned to 8 byte boundaries at all, they are only required to be aligned to 4
byte boundaries. Now with -malign-double they will get
--- Comment #4 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu 2008-12-11 23:25 ---
aligning the stack to 16 bytes is complaint
It might be complaint, but it certainly isn't compliant. The ABI says that you
can assume 4-byte alignment, and not all 4-byte alignments are 16-byte aligned
(obviously).
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-11 23:28 ---
GCC can and will realign the loop in 4.4 and above if the function needs a
bigger alignment than the required 4 byte. So again I don't see any issues
here really.
--
--- Comment #6 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu 2008-12-11 23:42 ---
GCC can and will realign the loop in 4.4 and above if the function needs a
bigger alignment than the required 4 byte. So again I don't see any issues
here really.
Is this the response to another request? I am
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-12 00:01 ---
Subject: Re: New: Gcc misaligns arrays when stack is
forced follow the x8632 ABI
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu wrote:
I notice that gcc does not follow the 32-bit ABI for the x86, in that
--- Comment #8 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu 2008-12-12 00:51 ---
I suppose that by 32-bit ABI for the x86 you mean a document with
1990-1996 SCO copyrights.
I was going by the linux standards base, which still links to:
http://www.caldera.com/developers/devspecs/abi386-4.pdf
--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-12-12 01:05 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
This is a link where people mention that fact that gcc is behaving
non-standardly, so people who want to interoperate with gcc better adopt their
non-standard behavior. How do you like
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-12-12 01:25
---
Subject: Re: Gcc misaligns arrays when stack is forced
follow the x8632 ABI
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu wrote:
I suppose that by 32-bit ABI for the x86 you mean a document with
--- Comment #11 from whaley at cs dot utsa dot edu 2008-12-12 01:48 ---
LSB may be a starting point for plausible hypotheses about the ABIs, but
you need to evaluate it critically to see whether each statement is
actually an accurate description of fact.
I.e., you are saying we don't
29 matches
Mail list logo
