http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #18 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-05
18:36:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-05
13:01:25 UTC ---
Ah, since PR53383 you can actually use -mno-sse -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3
on x86_64, but only with -mno-sse. Of course it is an ABI incompatible change,
so you need to rebu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #16 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-03
22:02:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> But no error is printed when I use -mpreferred-stack-boundary=4 on 64-bit CPU.
> Only when defined 0, then printed:
> error: -mpreferred-stack-b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #15 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-03
21:56:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Not fake, but the default and smallest value, i.e. for x86_64 ABI we don't
> allow lowering the value to smaller than ABI required alignments. O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-03
14:57:19 UTC ---
Not fake, but the default and smallest value, i.e. for x86_64 ABI we don't
allow lowering the value to smaller than ABI required alignments. Only for
32-bit i?86 code it is al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-03
13:48:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> That is completely irrelevant. The noreturn function is usually defined in
> some other CU, so you don't know what compiler flags it will be com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-03
13:07:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > You're wrong. That is to maintain the ABI, which for x86_64 says that the
> > stack is 16-byte aligned. Consider e.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-03
12:39:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> You're wrong. That is to maintain the ABI, which for x86_64 says that the
> stack is 16-byte aligned. Consider e.g. the noreturn function using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-03
09:07:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> 1) I agree for "push rbx" seves reg. But "sub rsp,8" is completely trash,
> because stack frame do not used at all, not for save reg, nor anything ot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
Alexander Kobets changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolutio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Kobets 2013-01-31
22:30:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Do you have alternative solution or proposals to remove unwanted code?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2013-01-31
22:16:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> Please do not mark bug as duplicate of another bug that was not resolveed.
> Give
> any chance to anybody to fix it. Even
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Kobets 2013-01-31
22:13:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Please do not mark bug as duplicate of another bug that was not resolveed. Give
any chance to anybody to fix it. Even if you wontfix, it is do not me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kobets 2013-01-31
20:55:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
This is I use --no-exceptions and count other optimize parameters and
absolutely do not intent any debug services or exceptions. I control my code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Kobets 2013-01-31
17:26:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 29319
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29319
Result code
18 matches
Mail list logo
