Re: C6X port 8/11: A new FUNCTION_ARG macro

2011-05-27 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 05/17/2011 06:34 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: On 05/12/2011 05:40 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: + if (targetm.calls.function_arg_round_to_arg_boundary (passed_mode, type)) +round_boundary = boundary; + else +round_boundary = PARM_BOUNDARY; Why add an if, instead of making the new

Re: C6X port 8/11: A new FUNCTION_ARG macro

2011-05-17 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 05/12/2011 05:40 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: + if (targetm.calls.function_arg_round_to_arg_boundary (passed_mode, type)) +round_boundary = boundary; + else +round_boundary = PARM_BOUNDARY; Why add an if, instead of making the new target hook function_arg_round_boundary? The default

Re: C6X port 8/11: A new FUNCTION_ARG macro

2011-05-12 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 05/10/2011 06:57 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Tue, 10 May 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On C6X, we have PARM_BOUNDARY == 8 (one byte), but some function argument slots still must be rounded to a larger value. As far as I could tell there's currently no way of telling gcc about this, hence a

C6X port 8/11: A new FUNCTION_ARG macro

2011-05-10 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On C6X, we have PARM_BOUNDARY == 8 (one byte), but some function argument slots still must be rounded to a larger value. As far as I could tell there's currently no way of telling gcc about this, hence a new target macro which controls this behaviour. Bernd * doc/tm.texi.in

Re: C6X port 8/11: A new FUNCTION_ARG macro

2011-05-10 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On C6X, we have PARM_BOUNDARY == 8 (one byte), but some function argument slots still must be rounded to a larger value. As far as I could tell there's currently no way of telling gcc about this, hence a new target macro which controls this behaviour.